'•^s 


■ty,K,\ 

1             *      •' 

1  ■                  ■•  , 

■i 

1'  ^ 

I:     %    '■'■ 

! 

^ 

^ 

CL 

,^ 

_ 

1 

f 

Q. 

'^ 

T3 

J5 

1 

^S 

•-3 

Q. 

. . 

*& 

^ 

o 

fe 

5 

1            ^^"^ 

. 

!             O 

c 

fcj) 

0) 

^ 

1 
1 

O 

:3 

1 

o 

^ 

£ 

M 

00 

>> 

1 

_Q 

Si 

*f» 

13 

«:i 

-k 

0) 

;§ 

1< 

5 

^ 

^ 

0) 

^ 

<^^ 

al 

r.x.. 

o        ^ 

EVILS 


OF 


DR.    HOWELL'S    BOOK 


ON  THE 


"EVILS    OF   INFANT   BAPTISM." 

BY    REV.    B.-^McMILLAN. 

FIRST    PUBLISHED    IN    THE    TRUE    BAPTIST. 

EDITED  BY  A.  KEWTOX. 


NEW   YORK:      ' 
PUBLISHED    BY    M.    W.    DODD, 

BRICK    CHLRCH    CHAPEL,    CITY    HALL    SQI'ARK. 

1855. 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  tlie  year  1854,  by 

M.    W.    DODD, 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  for   the  Southern  District  of   Nuw  York. 


STttttBOft-PED  BY 

THOMAS     B.     SMITH, 
216  William  St.,  N.  Y. 


^ 


This  Review  of  Howell's  Evils  of  Infant  Baptism 
was  first  published,  in  consecutive  numbers,  in  tlie 
True  Baptist.  It  was  written  by  the  Rev.  E. 
McMillan,  of  Gallatin,  Tennessee.  It  is  believed 
to  be  richly  worthy  to  appear  in  this  more  accept- 
able and  permanent  form,  and  is  now  ofi"ered  to  the 
friends  of  truth  as  a  most  satisfactory  and  unanswer- 
able refutation  of  the  pretences  of  the  objectors  to 

Infant  Baptism. 

The  Editor. 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Archive 

in  2011  witii  funding  from 

Princeton  Tiieological  Seminary  Library 


littp://www.arcliive.org/details/evilsofdrliowellsOOm 


INTRODUC 


The  volume*  entitled,  "■  The  Evils  of  Infant 
Baptism,"  was  written  by  one  of  the  ablest  ministers 
in  "  the  Southern  Baptist  Church,"  and  it  is  issued 
by  two  public  societies  approved  and  supported  by 
the  denomination.  "We  are  well  certified  by  these 
facts  that  the  work  is  approved  by  the  Immersionist 
church,  and  that  it  is  the  ablest  they  can  produce  on 
the  subject  upon  which  it  treats.  We  are  happy  here 
to  meet  the  whole  strength  of  the  denomination,  and 
to  be  able  to  measure  the  length,  breadth,  depth, 
and  height  of  the  argument  against  infant  baptism. 

We  do  not  admire  the  style  in  which  the  work  is 
written.     It  is  easy  and  plain ;  but  there  is  a  vast 

*  The  Evils  of  Infant  Baptism,  by  Robert  Boyte  C. 
Howcil,  D.D.,  (pastor  of  the  Second  Baptist  Church  in 
Richmond,  Ya.)  Third  edition.  Charleston,  S.  C. :  South- 
ern Baptist  Publication  Society.  Richmond,  Ya. :  Baptist 
Sunday  School  and  Publication  Society.     A.  D.  1852. 


VI  INTRODUCTION. 

deal  of  repetition,  and  frequently  the  author  betrays 
great  carelessness  in  contradicting  his  own  state- 
ments. There  is  very  little  of  the  suaviter  in  modo 
towards  his  opponents.  They  are  sometimes  called 
"  pious,"  and  that  sweet  word  "  brethren"  is  several 
times  applied ;  but  there  are  so  many  abrupt  and 
gruff  sentences,  that  the  reader  can  hardly  give  the 
author  the  credit  of  much  sincerity  in  the  use  of 
that  endearing  term.  The  estimate  of  the  argu- 
Client  can  be  better  made  out,  when  we  shall  have 
completed  our  review.  We  may,  however,  be  per- 
mitted here  to  say,  that  on  receiving  the  work  we 
expected  to  meet  something  of  a  much  higher  order, 
in  an  argumentative  point  of  view,  than  we  have 
found. 

The  work  consists  of  twenty  chapters.  Nineteen 
of  these  treat  of  the  same  number  of  supposed 
"  evils  of  infant  baptism ;"  and  the  twentieth  chap- 
ter recapitulates,  and  concludes  with  a  pathetic  ad- 
dress to  Immersionists  to  labor  for  the  conversion 
and  salvation  of  Pedo-baptists  and  the  world. 

We  propose  to  review  the  work  chapter  by  chapter 
in  the  order  pursued  by  the  author. 


CHAPTER-  i 


PAGK 

"Infant  Baptism  is  an  evil;  because  its  practice  is  unsupported 
by  the  Word  of  God." 9 

CHAPTER  11. 

"Infant  Baptism  is  an  evil ;  because  its  defence  leads  to  most  in- 
jurious perversions  of  the  Word  uf  God."        .        ...       22 

CHAPTER   in. 

"Infant  Baptism  is  an  evil;  because  it  engrafts  Judaism  upon  the 
Gospel  of  Christ." 36 

CHAPTER  IV. 

"  Infant  Baptism  is  an  evil ;  because  it  falsifies  the  doctrine  of  uni- 
versal depravity." 71 

CHAPTER  V. 

"Infant  Baptism  is  an  evil;  because  the  doctrines  upon  which  it 
rests  contradict  the  great  fundamental  principle  of  justification 
by  faith." 84 

CHAPTER   VI. 

"  Infant  baptism  is  an  evil ;  because  it  is  in  direct  conflict  with  the 
doctrine  of  Regeneration  by  the  Holy  Spirit."  ....       92 

CHAPTER  VII. 

"  Infant  Baptism  is  an  evil :  because  it  despoils  the  Church  ot  tnose 
peculiar  qualities  which  are  essential  to  the  Church  of  Christ."  .  101 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

"  Infant  Baptism  is  an  evil ;  because  its  practice  (?)  perpetuates 
the  superstitions  by  which  it  was  originated."     .        .        .        .121 

CHAPTER  IX. 

"Infant  Baptism  is  an  evil ;  because  it  subverts  the  true  doctrine 
of  infant  salvation." 137 


via  CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  X.  PAGB 

"Infant  Baptism  is  an  evil ;  because  it  lends  its  advocates  into  re- 
bellion against  the  aulhorily  of  Jesus  Christ."    ....  151 

CHAPTER  XL 

"  Infant  Baptism  is  an  evil ;  because  of  the  connection  it  assumes 
with  the  moral  and  religious  training  of  children."      .        .        .  160 

CHAPTER  Xn. 

"Infant  Baptism  is  an  evil;  becunse  it  is  the  grand  foundation 
u;jon  wliich  rests  the  union  of  Church  and  State."  .        .        .      163 

CHAPTER  Xni. 

"Infant  Baptism  is  an  evil ;  because  it  leads  to  religious  persecu- 
tions."   166 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

"Infant  Baptism  is  an  evil ;  because  it  is  contrary  to  the  princi- 
ples of  civil  and  religious  freedom." 179 

CHAPTER  XV. 

"Infant  Baptism  is  an  evil ;  because  it  enfeebles  the  power  of  the 
Church  to  combat  error," 183 

CHAPTER  XVI. 

"Infant  Baptism  is  an  evil;  because  it  injures  the  credit  of  re- 
ligion with  reflecting  men  of  the  world," 187 

CHAPTER  XVII. 

"  Infant  Baptism  is  an  evil ;  because  it  is  the  great  barrier  to  Chris- 
tian union." 192 

CHAPTER  XVIII. 

"  Infant  Baptism  is  an  evil ;  because  it  prevents  the  salutary  impress- 
io.-i  which  baptism  was  designed  to  make  upon  the  minds  of  both 
those  who  receive  it  and  those  who  witness  its  administration."   196 

CHAPTER  XIX. 

"Infant  Baptism  is  an  evil:  because  it  retards  the  designs  of 
Christ  in  the  conversion  ol  the  world." 201 

CHAPTER  XX. 
"Recapitulation,  with  concluding  address."  .       .       .       .       ;     207 


^j:% 


INFANT  BAPTISM  IS  AN  EVIL  ;    BECAUSE   ITS  PRACTICE  IS    UNSUP- 
PORTED BY  THE  WORD  OF  GOD." 


Ir  infant  baptism's  practice  is  wanting  in  such 
support,  it  must  be  conceded  that  it  has  gone  out  of 
the  way.  But  its  lawless  conduct  not  being  pointed 
out,  we  have  no  opportunity  to  judge  of  the  propriety 
of  its  behavior. 

Instead  of  treating  of  "  its  practice,"  the  author 
proceeds  to  condemn  the  conduct  of  the  people  who 
practice  it.  His  method  seems  to  us  rather  awk- 
ward. He  undertakes  to  prove  the  negative  2^ro2:)osi- 
tion,  "  Infant  Baptism  is  unsupported  by  the  Word 
of  God,"  and  thence  to  infer  that  it  is  "  an  evil." 

The  argument  in  logical  form  stands  thus  : 

Whatever  is  unsupported  by  the  Word  of  God  is 
an  evil. 

But  infant  baptism  is  unsupported  by  the  Word 
of  God. 

Therefore,  infant  baptism  is  an  evil. 

The  conclusion  will  certainly  follow  if  the  minor 
premise  be  proved,  and  the  extension  of  the  major 

!*• 


10  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

premise  be  limited  to  matters  of  religion.  Other- 
wise the  reasoning  will  not  be  conclusive.  We  have 
nothing  to  do,  then,  as  reviewers,  but  to  examine 
the  proof  of  the  negative  jproiwaition. 

1.  The  first  proof  is  in  the  following  style  :  "  Is 
infant  baptism  supported  by  the  Word  of  God  ?  I 
aver  that  it  is  not.  It  is  nowhere  commanded. 
It  is  nowhere,  in  any  form,  divinely  authorized," 
etc.  This  same  idea  is  bandied  back  and  forth 
in  seventeen  periods  as  dogmatic  and  pointed  as 
these.  The  author  seems  to  be  conscious  that  his 
readers  will  doubt  his  sincerity,  and  he  wishes  to 
guard  that  point  well.  This  is  the  only  conceivable 
use  of  repeating  dogmatically  the  same  idea  over 
and  over  so  often.  AVe  might  be  as  dogmatic  as  he, 
and  say — Infant  baptism  is  supported  by  the  Word 
of  God.  I  aver  that  it  is.  It  is  often  commanded. 
It  is  in  its  Scriptural  form  divinely  authorized,  etc.  : 
But  there  would  be  as  little  authority  in  our  dogma- 
tism as  in  his. 

2.  In  his  next  step  towards  proof,  our  author  con- 
tradicts himself  He  says  of  the  advocates  of  infant 
baptism  :  "  It  turns  out  that  no  two  of  them  have 
been  able  to  harmonize,  either  as  to  what  may  be  re- 
garded as  testimony  in  the  premises,  or  the  class  of 
infants  divinely  authorized  to  be  baptized  !  Each  is 
in  collision  with  every  other."  And  on  the  same 
page  he  tells  us — "  Wall,  Hammond,  and  others," 
agree  in  one  view  of  the  subject.     "  Owen,  Jennings, 


EVILS    OF   DR.    HOWELL.  11 

and  many  others,''^  agree  in  another  view.  "  Beza, 
Doddridge,  and  their  associates/'  hold  another  view. 
''  Wesley  and  his  disciple?'  "  agree  in  still  another. 
And  thus  he  goes  on  to  enumerate  nine  theories, 
each  of  which,  he  says,  is  supported  by  a  numerous 
class.  It  will  be  observed  that  it  is  not  simply  these 
classes  that  are  in  conflict.  It  is  "  individual  con- 
flicts" the  author  is  speaking  of,  when  he  says,  ''  No 
two  of  them  have  been  able  to  harmonize,"  and 
"  Each  is  in  collision  with  every  other."  A  writer 
so  reckless  in  the  statement  of  facts  deserves  little 
confidence.  And  an  examination  of  all  these  writers 
will  show  that  they  harmonize  better  than  the  writers 
who  advocate  immersion.  It  would  be  easy  to  pa- 
rade thirty  diSerent  views  concerning  immersion. 
Then,  if  difi'erence  among  its  advocates  proves  the 
want  of  Scriptural  support,  Imraersionists  must  give 
up  immersion  to-day,  and  practice  it  no  more  for- 
ever. *'  Happy  is  he  that  condemneth  not  himself  in 
that  thing  which  he  alloweth  "  If  Immersionists 
may  diff"er  without  invalidating  the  argument  for 
immersion,  Pedo-baptists  may  also  differ  without  in- 
validating the  argument  for  Pedobaptism.  Let  this 
argument  stand  in  its  logical  form,  and  we  shall  see 
how  boyish  it  is. 

Wherever  there  is  a  diflference  of  opinion  there  is 
no  valid  argument : 

But  there  is  a  difi'erence  of  opinion  among  Pedo- 
baptists  : 


12  EVILS    OF   DR.    HOWELL. 

Therefore,  there  is  no  valid  argument  among 
Pedo-baptists. 

And  as  there  is  difference  of  opinion  on  almost 
everything  under  heaven,  there  is  scarcely  any  truth 
on  earth !  Especially,  as  the  author  differs  with 
himself  there  is  no  truth  in  him,  on  his  own  theory. 

3.  The  third  proof  that  infant  baptism  is  not  sup- 
ported by  the  Scriptures  is  deduced  from  the  fact 
that  "  very  many  of  the  most  learned  and  pious 
Pedo-baptist  biblical  critics,  themselves  candidly 
confess  that  infant  baptism  is  not  distinctly  enjoined, 
uor  directly  taught  in  the  Word  of  God."  On  this 
extract  we  remark : 

(a.)  Although  the  author  designed,  in  the  use  of 
the  words  distinctly  and  directly^  to  secure  for  him- 
self a  back  door  of  recreation  in  the  hour  of  neces- 
sity, yet  in  his  recklessness  he  closed  it  against  him- 
self; for  he  says,  "  It  is  confessed  by  its  advocates 
that  it  (infant  baptism)  is  not  found  in  the  inspired 
pages — It  is  acknowledged  that  the  Word  of  God 
does  not  teach  infant  baptism."  Can  we  wonder 
that  the  world  does  not  respect  Christianity,  when  a 
D.D.,  a  pastor  of  a  prominent  Christian  church,  will 
venture  into  daylight  with  such  assertions  before 
God  and  the  world  ? 

(b.)  The  Pedo-baptist  writers  here  referred  to,  are 
conceded  to  be  both  "  learned  and  pious."  We 
wish  the  author,  in  his  next  edition,  to  tell  us  what 
his  notions  of  piety  are ;  since  in  his  view  a  "  learn- 


EVILS    OF   DR.    EOWELL.  13 

ed  and  pious"  man  may  practice  for  religion  wbat 
he  confesses  to  be  not  supported  by  the  Word  of 
God! 

On  examining  the  authors  here  referred  to,  it  will 
be  found  that,  although  they  do  not  believe  that  in- 
fant baptism  is  "  distinctly  enjoined,  nor  directly 
taught,"  they  believe  it  is  clearly  involved  in  other 
commands,  and  indirectly  taught  in  the  example  of 
the  Apostles ;  and  the  author  knows  all  that  very 
well ;  but  refuses  to  let  his  own  witnesses  state  all 
their  testimony.  An  advocate  who  can  thus  trifle 
with  testimony,  may  serve  the  purposes  of  a  party 
that  are  afraid  of  broad  daylight ;  but  he  will  hold 
no  enviable  position  in  the  esteem  of  high-minded 
gentlemen.  These  "  learned  and  pious  Pedo-baptist 
biblical  critics"  believe,  with  Immersionists,  that 
no  one  is  to  be  received  in  the  name  of  Christ  with- 
out baptism ;  and  that  when  he  commands  us  to  re- 
ceive little  children  in  his  name,  he  commands  us  to 
baptize  them.  This  is  not  a  distinct  command ;  but 
it  is  necessarily  involved  in  the  command  to  receive 
them  in  his  name,  if  Immersionists  are  orthodox  in 
refusing  to  receive  any  one  in  his  name  without  bap- 
tism. The  Apostles  practiced  it.  They  baptized 
households,  when  the  parents  believed,  without  men- 
tioning or  intimating  faith  in  any  of  the  household 
except  the  head  of  the  house.  Then  here  it  is  in- 
directly taught  in  apostolic  example. 

(c.)  The  author  here  attempts  to  prove  by  human 


14  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

testimony  that  "  inftmt  baptism  is  unsupported  by 
tiie  Word  of  Grod !"  and  he  knows,  and  the  world 
knows,  that  his  witnesses  believe,  declare,  and  prac- 
tice the  contrary  !  Let  conscience — let  his  own 
conscience — answer  what  credit  is  due  to  one  who 
will  take  such  ungenerous  steps.  Human  testimony  ! 
and  he  vociferating  for  the  Bible  alone  !  But  let  us 
have  the  third  argument  in  form. 

Then,  whatever  is  declared  by  "  learned  and  pious 
Pedo-baptist  biblical  critics"  is  true: 

But  these  critics  declare  that  "  infant  baptism  is 
unsupported  by  the  Word  of  God." 

Is  this  the  best  the  whole  immei'sing  church  can 
do  in  argument  ?  To  undertake  the  proof  of  a  7ieg- 
ative  in  religion,  and  that  by  human  testimony  on 
the  other  side  of  the  question,  is  surely  the  last  re- 
sort in  a  desperate  pressure. 

But  these  critics  declare  that  Dr.  Howell's  doc- 
trine is  erroneous. 

Therefore  it  is  true  that  Dr.  Howell's  doctrine  is 
erroneous. 

There,  now,  Doctor,  your  gun  shoots  as  hard  one 
way  as  the  other. 

4.  Immediately  after  his  parade  of  human  testi- 
mony on  the  other  side  of  the  question  to  prove  his 
divine  negative,  our  author  calls  our  attention  to 
"  the  great  Protestant  principle  in  religion,"  which 
declares  *'  The  Word  of  God  is  a  perfect  rule  of  faith 
and   practice."     After  declaring  his  reverence  for 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  15 

this  principle,  and  notifying  us,  '•  For  mj^self  and  my 
brethren — we  are  not  Protestants,"  he  proceeds  to 
inyeigh  heavily  against  Protestants  for  practicing 
infant  baptism  on  human  authority  without  the  sup- 
port of  the  Scriptures  !  It  would  be  just  as  decent 
in  us  to  upbraid  Immersionists  with  the  same  thing; 
but  there  is  no  argument  on  either  side.  Here  is 
the  attitude  in  which  the  thing  stands: 

The  advocates  of  infant  baptism  believe  the  fa- 
thers were  men  of  truth  and  common  sense.  They 
were  men  competent  to  give  testimony  concerning 
facts  that  occurred  under  their  own  observation ; 
and  intelligent  Immersionists  view  them  in  the  very 
same  light.  The  Pedo-baptists  come  forward  with 
certain  texts  of  Scripture,  which  they  believe  give  a 
clear  support  to  the  doctrine  of  infant  baptism ;  and 
now  they  adduce  the  testimony  of  the  fathers  de- 
claring the  fact  that  infants  were  baptized  in  their 
churches,  and  that  the  practice  had  prevailed  in  the 
churches  generally  from  the  time  of  the  Apostles. 
They  offer  this  testimony  not  to  prove  the  divine 
authority  for  the  rite ;  but  to  prove  that  the  early 
fathers  understood  the  Scriptures  as  they  do,  and  by 
this  means  they  suppose  they  increase  the  probability 
that  their  understanding  of  the  Scriptures  is  correct. 

Immersionists  take  exactly  the  same  course  to 
prove  immersion.  They  also  cite  texts  of  Scripture 
to  prove  immersion ;  and  attempt  to  support  their 
interpretation  of  these  texts  by  a  reference  to  the 


16  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

testimony  of  the  fathers,  showing  that  immersion 
was  extensively  practiced  at  an  early  day. 

If  in  such  cases  we  should  charge  them  with  a  re- 
sort to  human  authority,  they  would  repel  the  charge 
with  warmth,  and  complain  grievously  of  injustice. 
''  Whatsoever  ye  would  that  men  should  do  unto 
you.  do  ye  even  so  unto  them." 

They  "  are  not  Protestants  !"  Then  they  have  no 
objection  to  the  decree  of  Charles  Y.,  that  no 
Roman  Catholic  should  be  allowed  to  turn  Lutheran, 
and  that  the  Reformers  should  deliver  nothing  in 
their  sermons  contrary  to  the  received  doctrine  of 
the  Roman  Catholics  !  This  is  a  new  idea  borrowed 
from  the  Campbellites.  Until  recently,  Immersion- 
ists  claimed  to  be  Protestants.  Lately  they  have 
taken  it  into  their  heads  that  they  are  much  older 
than  the  Reformation,  and  that  their  fathers  could 
look  with  indifference  on  the  oppressive  edicts  of 
Catholic  tyrants.  Then,  who  are  theyl  They  can- 
not be  successors  of  the  Waldenses,  who  practiced 
infant  baptism,  by  sprinkling  and  pouring.  Besides,  a 
respectable  Immersionist  says,  that  the  descendants 
of  the  Waldenses  "  were  reckoned  among  the  Pro- 
testants with  whom  they  were  in  doctrine  so  con- 
genial." Even  the  Menonites,  according  to  the  tes- 
timony of  Mr.  Gan,  one  of  their  own  ministers, 
practiced  the  various  modes  of  sprinkling,  pouring 
and  immersion.  Who,  then,  have  the  Immersiouists 
got  to  be  at  last  ?     Not  Protestant ! 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  17 

After  all  this  ado,  our  author  proceeds  to  insist 
that  all  inference  from  the  sacred  Scriptures  is 
wholly  unauthorized.  In  this  he  differs  very  widely 
from  his  Master,  who  confuted  the  Sadducees  by  an 
inference  deduced  from  the  words  of  God  to  Moses 
— "  I  am  the  God  of  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob." 
He  differs  greatly  from  Paul,  whose  epistles  through- 
out are  so  many  chains  of  connected  reasoning  from 
the  Scriptures.  If  inferences  from  the  Bible  are 
unlawful,  our  pulpits  must  be  closed ;  for  preaching 
consists  of  little  else.  He  says,  "  In  the  Gospel 
every  duty  is  distinctly  enjoined."  Then,  in  the 
next  edition  of  his  work,  the  author  will  confer  a 
favor  by  telling  us  in  what  part  of  the  Gospel  he  is 
'•  distinctly  enjoined"  to  baptize  females,  to  plunge 
them  into  creeks,  or  to  admit  them  to  the  commun- 
ion of  the  church — to  hold  "  Baptist  associations" — 
to  write  and  publish  a  book  on  "  the  evils  of  infant 
baptism,"  etc.  Especially  we  should  be  gratified  to 
learn  in  what  part  of  the  Gospel  it  is  "  distinctly 
enjoined  " — Dr.  Hoivell^  thou  shall  remove  from 
Nashville  to  Richmond.  Verily,  "  thou  that  judg- 
est  doest  the  same  things."  He  need  give  himself 
no  trouble  about  apostolic  example,  and  general 
instructions.  These  we  know.  We  demand  a  dis- 
tinct INJUNCTION  in  each  of  these  cases. 

5.  Our  author's  next  argument  is  deduced  from 
the  apostolic  commission,  "  He  that  believeth,  and 
is  baptized,  shall  be  saved."     He  tells  us — "  The 


18  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

persons  to  be  baptized  are  minutely  described.  They 
are  believers.  A  law  to  baptize  believers  is  neces- 
sarily confined  in  its  administration  to  believers.  It 
embraces  no  others,"  &c.  This  idea  is  repeated 
twelve  times. 

When  we  examine  the  words  of  the  commission, 
we  find  the  Saviour  describes  not  the  persons  who 
shall  be  baptized^  but  who  shall  be  saved.  Believ- 
ing and  being  baptized  are  both  attributes  belonging 
properly  to  the  subject  of  salvation.  He  does  not 
say  that  every  believer  shall  be  baptized,  nor  that 
baptism  shall  be  administered  to  none  but  believers, 
nor  that  any  one,  who  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved,  nor 
that  any  one,  who  is  not  baptized,  shall  be  lost;  but 
simply  that  the  baptized  believer  shall  be  saved.  To 
any  man,  then,  who  seriously  examines  the  text,  it 
must  be  plain  that  the  intention  is  not  to  define  the 
subject  of  baptism,  but  the  subject  of  salvation. 
Let  me  offer  for  consideration  another  sentence  in 
the  same  regimen — "  He  that  is  industrious  and  fru- 
gal, shall  be  rich."  Does  the  speaker  here  describe 
the  subject  of  frugality,  or  of  wealth  ? 

Our  author  goes  on  to  show,  that  baptism  admits 
the  party  baptized  into  the  visible  church,  and  de- 
notes his  consecration  to  Grod ;  and  from  these  facts 
argues  that  infant  baptism  is  "  unsupported  by  the 
Word  of  God." 

This  reasoning  is  seen  to  be  a  great  fallacy,  if  we 
recollect  that  infants  are  declared  by  the  King  him- 


EVILS    OF    DR,    HOWELL,  19 

self  to  belong  to  his  kingdom,  and  therefore  should 
be  bajDtized  in  acknowledgment  of  the  fact.  It  is 
the  act  of  the  parent  to  make  this  acknowledgment 
and  consecration.  The  infant  is  incapable  of  con- 
fessing itself  to  be  a  human  being;  but  others  ac- 
knowledge that  truth,  and  regard  it  as  a  member  of 
human  society.  Suppose  now  there  were  a  law  that 
every  citizen  of  the  State  is  to  be  denoted  by  print- 
ing the  letter  A  upon  his  forehead ;  would  it  be 
proper  to  place  that  letter  A  upon  the  forehead  of 
every  infant  born  in  the  State?  Then  why  question 
the  right  of  infants  to  baptism,  unless  the  intention 
be  to  question  their  right  to  stand  in  the  kingdom 
of  God  ?  If  they  be  proper  subjects  of  salvation, 
they  must  be  proper  subjects  of  baptism ;  because 
that  is  plainly  the  force  of  the  words,  "  He  that  be- 
lieveth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved."  If  infants 
are  numbered  with  the  saved  in  heaven,  why  should 
they  not  be  numbered  with  them  on  earth  ?  These 
are  points  for  consideration. 

6.  Still  another  argument  to  show  that  infant  bap- 
tism is  unsupported  by  the  Word  of  God,"  is  this — 
"  It  betrays  ministers  into  the  most  fearful  presump- 
tion, [and  it]  must  create  in  the  minds  of  the  j!;eo^/e 
generally^  who  are  under  its  influence,  a  want  of 
proper  respect  for  the  Word  of  God."  This  is  simple 
impudence.  Until  recently,  Immersionists  drank 
more  alcohol  than  all  other  Christians  together,  and 
even  yet  they  are  behind  most  others  in  the  reform. 


20  EVILS    OF   DR,    HOWELL. 

They  have  been  generally  very  deficient  in  training 
their  children  to  study  the  Scriptures.  Many  have 
no  Sabbath,  and  few  of  them  hare  risen  to  eminence 
in  scriptural  knowledge ;  and  yet  our  author,  who 
must  know  these  facts,  ventures  into  open  daylight 
before  the  world  with  the  assertion  that  those  who 
practice  infant  baptism  want  "  proper  respect  for  the 
Word  of  God."  It  would  be  about  as  true  to  declare 
that  rain  prevents  the  growth  of  vegetables. 

He  says — "  It  never  can  be  recognized  as  baptism 
by  the  people  of  God."  Then,  plainly,  he  means  to 
say  that  Immersionists  are  the  only  people  of  God  : 
because  all  others  do  so  recognize  it.  In  this  he 
assumes  to  play  the  judge,  and  forgets  that  he  him- 
self is  to  stand  before  the  Judge.  Ah  !  Doctor, 
your  arm  is  too  tiny  to  fling  the  flickering  bolts  of 
heaven.  When  you  say  "  Infant  baptism  necessarily 
destroys  respect  for  the  Word  of  God,"  you  certaiuly 
destroy  respect  for  yourself  among  the  well-informed. 

I  will  close  my  remarks  on  the  first  chapter  with 
a  notice  of  one  other  extract  : 

"  Infant  baptism  is  not  according  to  the  law  of 
God.  It  is  a  violation  of  the  law  of  God.  It  is  a 
transgression  of  the  law  of  God. 

"  Therefore,  infant  baptism  is  a  sin  against  God." 

This  extract  much  resembles  the  ravings  of  a 
guilty  boy,  who  knows  that  his  crimes  are  about  to 
come  to  light.  He  pleads  his  innocencp  thus  : — I 
did  not  do  it.     I  am  not  capable  of  it.     I  could 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  21 

not  do  it.  I  never  thought  of  it.  It  did  not  come 
into  my  mind.  Nobody  believes  it.  No  one  can  be- 
lieve it^  Sf'C.  How  different  is  the  language  of  con- 
scious innocence,  which  makes  its  denial  with  dig- 
nity, and  when  further  questioned,  replies,  "  I  have 
told  you  already ;  wherefore  would  you  hear  it 
again  ?"  If  there  be  any  argument  in  such  a  bluster 
of  words,  it  would  be  easy  for  us  to  overthrow  im- 
mersion by  the  same  process  : — ''  Immersion  is  not 
according  to  the  law  of  God.  It  is  a  violation  of 
the  law  of  God.  It  is  a  transgression  of  the  law  of 
God.  Therefore,  immersion  is  a  sin  against  God." 
But  such  assertions  we  should  view  as  mere  dicta- 
tion, attempting  to  lord  it  over  the  conscience  of 
others.  It  is  all  assumption  ;  and  its  author  is  more 
of  a  braggadocio  than  of  a  reasoner.  There  is 
no  evidence,  there  can  be  no  conviction,  and  to  at- 
tempt to  supply  the  place  of  evidence  with  authority^ 
is  the  proper  business  of  an  autocrat  or  a  pope. 


CHAPTEK  II. 

"  INFANT    BAPTISM    IS  AN   EVIL  ;    BECAUSK  ITS  DEFENCE  LEADS  TO 
MOST  INJURIOUS  PERVERSIONS  OF  THE  WORD  OF  GOD." 

In  the  introduction  of  this  subject  the  author 
says,  '•  It  is  the  process  by  which  the  churches  which 
practice  it,  receive  their  entire  membership."  It  is 
hard  to  conceive  how  any  man  could  live  in  Christen- 
dom as  long  as  Dr.  Howell  has,  and  still  be  able  to 
say  that  Pedo-baptists  "  receive  their  entire  mem- 
bership" by  infant  baptism.  If  he  really  supposes 
that  they  receive  no  members  but  those  who  were 
baptized  in  infancy,  he  is  deplorably  ignorant  of  the 
facts  around  him — too  ignorant,  surely,  to  write  a 
book  about  them.  If  he  knows  the  facts  in  the  case, 
and  still  asserts  that  all  they  receive  were  baptized 
in  infancy,  I  deliver  him  over  to  the  judgment  of 
the  people  and  of  God. 

In  remarking  on-  the  commission  as  given  by 
Matthew — "  Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations, 
baptizing  them  in  the  name,"  etc.,  he  says,  "  The 
order   is  plainly  as   imperative    as   the  commands 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  23 

themselves."  After  repeating  this  idea  four  times, 
he  proceeds  to  argue,  that  as  infants  are  baptized  be- 
fore they  are  taught,  it  is  a  violation  of  the  divinely- 
appointed  order,  and  is,  therefore,  a  violation  of  the 
command  itself  This  is  the  first  instance  in  the  book 
of  anything  like  an  argument,  and  we  must  treat  it 
with  respect.     We  observe,  then, 

1.  The  order  here  spoken  of  is  a  mere  fancy;  for 
the  participle — "  baptizing" — agrees  in  case  with  the 
nominative  to  the  verb — "  teach" — and  in  gram- 
matical order,  may  just  as  well  be  placed  before  as 
after  the  verb. 

2.  His  rule  would  force  the  author  into  the  doe- 
trine  that  no  one  is  ever  clothed  with  Christ  until 
he  is  baptized.  Gal.  3  ;  27,  and  if  never  baptized, 
he  never  can  can  be  clothed  with  Christ,  and  must 
be  morally  naked  forever. 

3.  The  Saviour  did  not  here  institute  baptism ; 
but  merely  commanded  his  disciples  still  to  admin- 
ister it.  They  had  already  baptized  under  his  in- 
structions, according  to  the  ancient  usages  of  the 
church  of  God.  He  plainly  did  not  describe  here 
the  subjects  of  baptism ;  but  left  them  to  be  guided 
in  that  particular  by  the  instructions  which  they  had 
already  received ;  and,  of  course,  they  would  not 
refuse  to  admit  as  members  of  his  kingdom  such 
little  ones  as  those  about  which  he  before  gave  them 
charges  so  solemn. 

4.  Our  author  sneers  at  the  idea  of  making  one 


2-1  EVILS    OF   DR.    HOWELL. 

a  disciple  by  Ibaptisin.  If  one  may  be  a  t^e  disciple 
without  baptism,  let  him  explain  how  it  is  that  he 
refuses  to  receive  as  disciples  all  who  are  not  im- 
mersed. No  one  can  be  openly  Christ's  disciple  but 
by  baptism.  If,  then,  a  disciple  is  a  learner,  and  if 
training  up  children  "  in  the  nurture  and  admoni- 
tion of  the  Lord"  is  to  make  them  learners  in  re- 
ligion, their  young  discipleship  is  as  properly  com- 
menced with  baptism  as  that  of  any  others.  Do 
adults  cease  to  learn  after  baptism  ? 

5.  No  one  contends  that  adults  are  baptized  until 
they  voluntarily  agree  to  be  disciples ;  because  their 
discipleship  depends  on  their  own  voluntary'  action. 
But  infants  are  to  be  made  disciples  by  the  instruc- 
tions of  their  parents  preparatory  to  a  right  choice 
when  they  come  to  maturity.  That  it  is  the  duty 
of  parents  to  forestall  the  discipleship  of  their  chil- 
dren none  can  deny ;  and  of  course  none  can  deny 
the  propriety  of  baptizing  them,  since  every  such 
denial  involves  also  the  denial  of  their  right  to  teach 
them  the  ways  of  the  Lord  without  first  obtaining 
their  consent.  To  baptize  them  without  their  consent 
is  surely  no  more  an  infraction  of  tlieir  liberty  than  to 
teach  them  without  their  consent.  Indeed,  they  are 
incapable  of  consent,  and  to  their  parents  they  are 
committed  to  be  trained  to  the  exercise  of  a  propor 
consent.  Their  baptism,  then,  is  the  solemn  conse- 
cration of  them  as  young  disciples  to  be  trained  to 
know  and  confess  the  Lord.     The  baptism  of  adults 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  25 

usually  takes  place  as  soon  as  they  consent  to  be 
learned,  and  the  teaching  and  learning  follow  baptism. 

Our  author  concludes  this  argument  with  a  quite 
pathetic  lamentation  over  the  blindness  of  "  great 
and  good  men."  Whenever  men  begin  to  argue  in 
earnest,  their  charity  will  certainly  gain  the  ascend- 
ency over  their  lower  passions ;  and  if  our  author 
could  get  the  idea  that  he  is  a  partaker  of  a  com- 
mon weakness  with  those  over  whom  he  laments,  he 
might  profitably  spend  in  self-examination  a  part  of 
the  time  thrown  away  in  lamenting  over  others. 

After  quoting  the  views  of  men  on  the  import  of 
Peter's  words — '  The  promise  is  to  you  and  your 
children" — showing  that  some  believe  "  the  promise" 
is  that  made  to  Abraham  ;  and  others,  that  'uade 
by  Joel  concerning  the  gift  of  the  Spirit.  Our 
author,  of  course,  gives  his  verdict  with  thoso  who 
refer  ''  the  promise"  to  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

It  is  but  just  to  concede  that  there  are  rome 
plausible  reasons  for  this  view  of  the  text ;  but  it 
must  be  admitted,  that  the  word  is  so  often  applied 
emphatically  by  the  Apostles  to  the  covenant  of  cir- 
cumcision, that  it  forms  a  very  strong  probability  in 
favor  of  the  other  view.  Be  this  as  it  may,  if  our 
author  could  demonstrate  that  Peter  here  alluded 
to  "  the  promise"  of  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  he 
cannot  thence  conclude,  as  he  does,  that  the  Abra- 
hamic  covenant  has  been  annulled ;  since  Paul  ex- 
pressly declares,  "  That  the  blessing  of  Abraham 
3 


26  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

might  come  on  the  Gentiles  through  Jesus  Christ, 
that  we  miglit  receive  the  iiromise  of  the  Spirit 
through  faith.  And  if  3-e  be  Christ's,  then  are  ye 
Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs  according  to  t/ic  inomiseT 
Gal.  3:14,  29. 

Then  our  author  cannot  boast  that  he  has  "  dis- 
posed of  the  chief  Scripture  ground"  on  which  in- 
fant baptism  rests.  For  if  by  faith  in  Christ  we 
become  the  children  of  Abraham,  and  heirs  to  the 
promise  made  to  him,  we  must  inherit  the  privilege 
conferred  on  him.  Then  let  us  question  the  Bible 
here.  Did  God  sustain  the  same  relation  to  Abra- 
ham and  his  infant  children  ?  Answer — I  will  "  be 
a  God  unto  thee  and  thy  seed  after  thee  ;  and  he 
that  is  eight  days  old  shall  be  circumcised  among 
you — and  it  shall  be  a  token  of  the  covenant  betwixt 
me  and  you."     Gen.  17  ch. 

But  was  not  circumcision  a  mere  national  dis- 
tinction ?  Ans. — '•  He  received  the  sign  of  circum- 
cision, a  seed  of  the  righteousness  of  faiths 

Then  does  God  also  sustain  to  believers  and  their 
children  under  the  gospel  the  same  relation  as  to 
Abraham  and  his  children  before  the  law  ?  Ans. — 
"  If  ye  be  Christ's,  then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed, 
and  heirs  according  to  the  promise." 

Over  these  eternal  bars  our  author  never  can 
climb. 

The  following  is  the  rendering  the  Doctor  gives 
to  1    Cor.   7:    14 — "The   unbelieving   husband   is 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  27 

sanctified  to  the  wife,  and  the  unbelieving  wife  is 
sanctified  to  the  husband,  else  were  your  children 
unclean,  [to  you,]  but  now  are  they  holy."  As  thus 
rendered,  our  author  proceeds  to  argue  that  the 
Apostle  means  to  teach  that  the  marriage  relation 
sanctifies  the  unbelieving  party  to  the  believing,  and 
on  the  same  ground  the  children  are  holy  to  the 
parents.  To  sustain  himself,  he  quotes  several 
authors,  and  says,  "  Upon  this  point,  therefore,  we 
are  certainly  right." 

It  is  very  strange  that  one  who  makes  his  appeal 
to  the  Bible,  and  rebukes  others  so  fiercely  for  ap- 
pealing to  human  authority,  should  conclude  he  is 
"  certainly  right,"  because  he  agrees  with  great  men ! 
But  our  author  does  not  mark  closely  what  Paul 
says.  He  says  that  children  would  be  unclean^  if 
the  unbelieving  party  were  not  sanctified  by  the  be- 
lieving. Now,  it  is  plain  that  where  both  parties 
are  unbelievers,  neither  can  sanctify  the  other,  so 
that  their  children  must  be  unclean  [to  them]  by  his 
own  showing.  But  that  is  not  the  fact.  Unbelievers 
do  not  regard  their  children  as  unclean  [to  them.] 

The  rendering  here  given  is  forced  and  unnatural, 
and  would  never  occur  to  one  who  had  no  purpose 
to  serve  by  it.  It  also  compels  one  to  foist  into  the 
text  the  words  to  you.  Our  common  translation  is 
far  more  natural  and  proper,  and  leads  us  into  no 
difficulty.  The  plain  and  obvious  import  of  the  text 
is, 'that  those  children  whose  parents  are  both  un- 


28  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

believers  are  in  some  sense  unclean^  but  those  who 
have  even  but  one  believing  parent  are  in  some 
sense  holy.  This  sense  has  been  shown  in  the  True 
Baptist,  vol.  1,  pages  345-353. 

The  Doctor  seems  to  think  the  advocates  of  infant 
baptism  attach  much  importance  to  "  a  holy  pedigree." 
If  he  will  take  tlie  trouble  to  seek  correct  informa- 
tion, he  will  find  that  it  is  not  to  "a  holy  pedigree" 
we  look,  but  to  a  holy  example  and  holy  instruc- 
tions. We  have  before  proved,  as  in  the  case  of 
Abraham's  lineal  descendants  and  those  of  all  be- 
lievers, that  grace  does  not  follow  the  line  of  natural 
generation;  but  that  of  proper  instruction.  God 
says  of  Abraham — "  I  know  him,  that  he  will  com- 
mand his  children  and  his  household  after  him,  and 
they  shall  keep  the  way  of  the  Lord,  to  do  justice 
and  judgment;  that  the  Lord  may  bring  upon 
Abraham  that  which  he  hath  spoken  of  him." 

Here  the  Doctor  may  please  to  note  that  the  bless- 
ing goes  not  by  "  pedigree,"  but  by  wholesome  re- 
straints and  instructions  as  well  to  his  household  as 
to  his  children ;  and  to  this  day  we  baptize  wards 
and  servants  as  readily  as  children.*  Then  our 
Doctor  is  shamefully  ignorant  of  facts,  or  deplorably 
regardless  of  justice  to  others. 

In  the  close  of  his  remarks  on  1  Cor.  vii.  14,  our 
author  gives  us  what  he  deems  a  poser.  It  is  this : 
"  If,  then,  you  baptize  the  child  upon  the  faith  of 
*  True  Baptist,  pp.  309-315. 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  29 

its  mother,  you  must,  to  be  consistent,  baptize  the 
unbelieving  husband  upon  the  faith  of  his  wife,  since, 
if  the  child  is  holy^  so  also  is  the  unbelieving  father 
sanctified^''  Let  us  try  the  validity  of  this  argu- 
ment by  applying  it  to  another  subject.  Then  it 
will  run  thus : 

If  you  allow  the  mother,  upon  her  authority  as  a 
mother,  to  chastise  her  delinquent  child,  you  must, 
to  be  consistent,  allow  her  to  chastise  her  delinquent 
husband ;  since,  if  the  child  be  delinquent,  so  is  also 
the  father  a  transgressor  .  .  .  Woe  to  the  Doctor 
and  all  other  husbands,  if  the  authority  of  his  own 
logic  were  established.  To  make  his  argument  valid, 
he  must  provo  that  the  wife  has  authority  over  her 
husband's  conscience  to  command  and  control  it  by 
example  and  instruction,  as  she  commands  and  con- 
trols the  conscience  of  her  children  during  their 
minority.  And  since  the  believing  husband  sancti- 
fies the  wife  also,  he  must  prove  that  the  husband 
has  the  same  authority  to  control  his  wife's  con- 
science as  to  control  that  of  his  own  children.  Then 
the  husband  and  the  wife  would  each  possess  abso- 
lute, parental  authority  over  the  other  !  God  save 
the  family  and  the  state  from  Immersional  policy, 
and  the  world  from  Immersional  logic !  If  the  hus- 
band were  a  minor,  like  an  infant,  under  the  control 
of  his  wife,  it  would  be  very  proper  to  baptize  him, 
not  "  upon,"  but  under ^  the  faith  of  his  wife.  But 
as  this  is  not  the  fact,  he  can  no  more  be  baptized 
3* 


30  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

■under  the  faith  of  the  wife  than  the  son  grown  to 
self  responsibility  can  be  baptized  under  the  faith  of 
his  mother. 

The  next  passage  that  receives  the  attention  of 
our  author  is  Matt.  xix.  14,  where  it  is  declared  of 
little  children,  "  Of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven." 
He  admits  that  the  phrase  "  kingdom  of  heaven" 
means  the  Christian  church ;  but  how  to  keep  the 
little  intruders  out,  while  the  Master  stands  at  the 
gate  rebuking  his  disciples  and  bidding  the  *'  little 
children"  welcome,  is  rather  hard  for  him  to  con- 
ceive. After  shuffling  about  ia  great  perturbation, 
he  makes  the  learned  discovery  that  toiouton^  "  such," 
does  not  mean  same;  but  really  means  "  such;"  and, 
of  course,  that  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  or  Christian 
church,  does  not  consist  of  the  same  as  little  children, 
but  only  of  "  such"  as  little  children  !  That  is,  little 
children  make  no  part  of  those  who  are  in  the  king- 
dom, but  those  who  are  in  it  are,  in  some  respects, 
like  little  children.  On  this  view  of  the  subject,  let 
us  remark : 

1.  If  we  should  accuse  the  Immersers  of  preach- 
ing infant  damnation,  the  color  would  rise  in  their 
faces,  and  they  would  complain  vehemently  of  perse- 
cution. Still,  in  this  work,  accredited  and  published 
to  the  world  as  the  true  statement  of  their  doctrines, 
it  is  distinctly  denied  that  infants  make  either  part 
or  parcel  of  the  kingdom  of  God  !  If,  then,  they  do 
not  belong  to  this  kingdom,  how,  in  the  name  of 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  31 

reason,  are  they  to  have  a  place  in  it  ?  Our  doctrine 
is,  that  all  infants  do  belong  to  this  kingdom ;  and 
that  therefore  all  parents  ought  to  confess  this  truth 
by  baptism,  the  only  authorized  acknowledgment  of 
the  fact.  But  such  is  the  opposition  of  Immersion- 
ists  to  this  doctrine  of  infant  baptism,  that  they  will, 
under  the  rebuke  of  Jesus,  refuse  to  infants  a  place 
in  his  kingdom. 

2.  If  those  who  do  compose  this  kingdom  are  like 
little  children  in  disposition,  and  for  that  reason  are 
admitted  into  it.  we  should  like  to  have  the  ground 
explained,  on  which  the  little  children  are  excluded. 
If  the  admitted  adult  is  just  like  the  infant  in  cer- 
tain respects,  on  what  ground  is  the  infant  excluded, 
when  he  is  admitted  to  have  the  very  same  disposi- 
tion ?  Our  author  says  little  children  love,  believe, 
obey,  and  receive  the  instruction  of  their  parents ; 
and  the  same  affections  in  adults  towards  God  form 
their  qualification  for  the  kingdom  of  God ;  but  he 
forgets  that  God  has  made  the  little  child  responsible 
to  the  parent,  and  requires  it  to  exercise  towards  its 
parent  the  same  feelings  he  requires  adults  to  exer- 
cise towards  himself. 

By  his  own  showing,  then,  the  little  child  yields 
the  same  obedience  as  the  adult;  and  our  Lord 
teaches  that  this  obedience  is  so  much  more  perfect 
in  the  little  child  than  in  the  adult,  that  he  sends 
the  latter  to  the  former  for  an  instructive  example. 
God  has  required  the  child  to  love,  obey,  and  believe 


32  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

its  parents — duties  suited  exactly  to  its  powers — and 
will  he  not  reward  that  little  one's  obedience  with  a 
place  in  his  kingdom,  when  he  receives  into  the  same 
kingdom  the  sinner,  who  returns  to  duty  under  the 
influences  of  his  saving  grace  ?  What  strange  hal- 
lucinations come  over  the  mind  from  opposition  to 
infant  baptism  ! 

When  Jesus  tells  us  that  we  must  "  receive  the 
kingdom  of  God  as  a  little  ckild^''^  the  plain  import 
of  his  words  teaches  that  a  little  child  does  receive 
the  kingdom  of  God ;  and  in  this  very  respect  it  is  a 
proper  example  to  the  adult.  Do  little  children  re- 
ceive the  kingdom,  and  are  they  still  excluded  from 
it?  Immersionists  say  they  cannot  enter.  Christ 
says,  "  Of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven" — they  re- 
ceive it.  Then  they  shall  enter  and  triumph  over  all 
their  opponents,  and  sing  their  victory  over  doctors 
and  preachers  in  the  glories  of  the  kingdom  forever 
and  ever. 

3.  But  Immersers  say  that  none  are  to  enter  the 
kingdom  but  believers.  Then  they  will  be  so  good 
as  to  remember  that  none  are  to  be  saved  but  be- 
lievers. If  the  want  of  personal  faith  excludes  them 
from  the  church,  it  will  also  exclude  them  from 
heaven.  Here  again  is  infant  damnation  as  rank  as 
the  fumes  of  tophet.  If  they  apply  to  infants  one 
passage,  that  is  spoken  of  adults,  they  open  the  flood- 
gates which  sweep  them  to  hell.  We  can  never  see 
clearly  till  we  allow  God  to  speak  for  himself.    When 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  33 

he  speaks  of  infants,  let  it  stand  firm  as  the  everlast- 
ing hills — "  Of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven." 
And  when  he  says,  "  He  that  believeth  not,  shall  be 
damned,"  let  no  rash  mortal  try  to  turn  the  curse 
aside  to  the  head  of  an  infant,  unless  he  be  willing 
to  incur  the  peril  of  being  himself  swallowed  up  and 
consumed  by  the  fearful  denunciation. 

Does  the  Bible  teach  that  all  who  die  in  infancy 
enter  immediately  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ?  All 
creation  answers,  Yes.  Then  does  the  Bible  teach 
that  young  infants  are  believers  in  Christ  ?  Not  an 
affirmative  is  heard.  Are  there  any  in  heaven  ap- 
pointed to  the  special  care  of  infants'?  Jesus  an- 
swers, '•  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  their  angels  do  al- 
ways behold  the  face  of  my  Father."  There  these 
cherubic  nurses  will  lead  and  teach  them,  while  the 
Holy  Spirit  enlightens  and  guides  their  souls  to  the 
exercise  of  every  holy  afiection.  so  that  all  they  shall 
ever  learn  or  know,  will  be  to  love,  believe,  and  obey 
Jesus  Christ ;  and  yet  the  baptism  of  water  is  deemed 
too  pure  for  them  to  receive,  and  the  church  on  earth 
too  holy  to  give  them  a  place  !  No ;  the  whole  se- 
cret is.  Immersionists  are  afraid  of  strangling  them 
in  the  awkward  mode  of  immersion,  and  rather  than 
give  up  that  human  invention,  they  will  exclude  in- 
fants from  the  kingdom  of  heaven;  and  the  more 
consistent  among  them  boldly  and  publicly  preach, 
that  there  are  "  infants  in  hell  no  more  than  a  span 
long  1" 


34  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

But  it  is  a  little  amusing  to  see  how  our  author 
disposes  of  Matthew  Henry's,  and  Dr.  Clarke's  com- 
ments 6n  this  passage.  He  quotes  Henry's  first,  and 
lays  him  out  with  three  exclamation  points,  as  fol- 
lows :  "  Look  at  this  gloss  !  Ponder  it !  How  pre- 
posterous !"  This  is  all  he  says  about  it,  and,  poor 
mortal,  it  is  all  he  can  say.  What  a  picture  of  vacu- 
ity any  one  must  present,  when  ojffering  such  excla- 
mations in  the  room  of  solid  argument ! 

He  then  quotes  from  Dr.  Clarke,  and  abolishes 
his  views  with  two  exclamations  of  greater  length, 
thus :  "  These,  and  such  like,  are  the  Pedo-Baptist 
interpretations  of  the  passage  in  question  !  They 
are  publlslied  to  the  world,  and  received,  and  de- 
fended, as  expressing  its  true  sense !"  and  thus  he 
confutes  Dr.  Clarke. 

But  after  getting  away  from  these  comments  into 
another  paragrah,  the  Doctor  seems  suddenly  to  grow 
bold,  and  turning  about,  he  dilutes  the  comments  of 
these  great  men  with  a  quantity  of  his  own  thoughts 
as  weak  as  water,  thrown  in  among  the  words  of  the 
commentators  ;  and  we  expected  some  demonstration 
at  the  close  of  this  paragraph ;  but  every  word  of 
refutation  is  in  these  two  exclamations — "  What  per- 
versions !  What  falsifications  of  truth  !"  Yet  Im- 
mersionists  will  open  their  mouths,  I  dare  say,  and 
stare  with  profound  astonishment  at  the  wisdom, 
which  is  seen  neither  by  themselves  nor  any  body 
else  !     Why,  the  man  wonders  mightily  at  the  follies 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  35 

of  other  people.  He  must,  therefore,  be  very  wise 
himself.  But  his  wonder  is  so  great  he  can  give  no 
utterance  to  his  thoughts  !  No,  friend,  he  has  no 
thoughts.  If  he  had,  they  would  find  utterance. 
He  quotes  from  other  arguments,  which  he  knows 
he  cannot  answer,  to  make  you  believe  that  he  is  can- 
did. He  then  wonders  over  them  to  make  you  be- 
lieve he  is  so  astonished  at  their  weakness  that  he 
cannot  utter  a  word,  when,  in  reality,  he  is  so  con- 
founded that  he  has  not  a  word  to  say.  Whenever 
our  author  can  think  of  anything  plausible,  he  man- 
ifests no  trouble  in  utterance.  The  profusion  of  ex- 
clamations comes  from  no  deep  resources  of  wisdom, 
but  from  the  empty  vaults  of  conscious  inability. 
This  is  the  best  the  whole  denomination  can  do — to 
use  exclamations  for  arguments.  If  they  had  argu- 
ments we  should  hear  them.  Let  them  stand,  then, 
and  wisely  wonder,  while  we  proceed  in  the  light  of 
clear  argument,  always  drawn  from  the  Bible,  to 
place  the  truth  before  the  world.  Already  increas- 
ing light,  has  forced  them  to  educate  their  ministers, 
and  the  same  light  as  it  approaches  a  more  perfect 
day,  will  compel  them  to  abandon  their  errors. 


CHAPTER  HI. 

"INFANT  BAPTISM  IS  AN  EYIL ;     BECAUSE    IT    ENGRAFTS  JU- 
DAISM  UPON    THE   GOSPEL   OP    CHRIST. 

The  word  Judaism  is  usually  employed  to  denote 
all  the  ordinances  and  ceremonies  of  the  Jewish 
Church  before  the  coming  of  our  Saviour ;  but  our 
author  seems  to  confine  it  to  only  a  few  of  these.  If 
everything  contained  in  Judaism  is  to  be  condemn- 
ed as  opposed  to  the  gospel  of  Christ,  we  must  view 
the  law  as  being  against  the  promises,  and  discard 
from  our  creed  the  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  uni- 
ty of  God,  and  Jesus  must  then  take  the  character 
of  the  destroyer  of  the  law,  and  not  its  fulfiller. 
It  must  be  remembered  in  this  sweeping  condemna- 
tion, that  baptism  itself  is  one  of  the  most  promi- 
nent and  oft  repeated  ordinances  of  the  Jewish  ser- 
vice ;  and  if  Judaism  is  to  be  indiscriminately 
condemned,  then  adult  baptism  goes  with  infant 
baptism. 

The  chapter  before  us  opens  with  the  declaration 
that  there  are  but  two  theories  of  church  organiza- 


EVILS    OF   DR.    HOWELL.  37 

tioD,  which  are  consistent  with  themselves.  "  The 
former  is  Baptist.  The  latter  is  Roman  Catholic." 
Now  we  know  why  "  the  Baptists  are  not  Protest- 
ants"— They  are  consistent  with  themselves,  like 
the  Roman  Catholics.  Neither  of  these  are  denom- 
inations. They  are  both  consistent  cJatrclies.  "  Be- 
tween these  two,"  says  Dr.  II.,  "  and  partaking  more 
or  less  of  both,  stand  all  the  various  Protestant 
denominations.  Their  evangelical  spirituality  is 
'  Baptist.'  Their  other  characteristics,  and  especial- 
ly their  infant  baptism,  is  Roman  Catholic,  or  rather 
Judaism,  of  which  Popery  is  confessedl}^  a  continu- 
ation." It  would  be  hard  to  guess  who  in  creation 
ever  confessed  that  except  Dr.  H.,  and  he  had  better 
been  confessing  something  else.  But  let  us  examine 
the  points, 

1.  Popery  a  continuation  of  Judaism  !  Popery 
contains  fur  more  of  Paganism  than  Judaism.  What 
part  of  Judaism  authorizes  prayers  for  the  dead,  the 
invocation  of  saints,  the  worship  of  images,  absolu- 
tion by  a  priest,  indulgences,  counting  beads,  the 
confessional,  purgatory,  transubstantiation,  or,  in- 
deed, anything  else  that  is  peculiar  to  Popery? 
Charity  itself  forbids  us  to  attribute  this  slur  on  all 
the  Protestant  churches  to  ignorance  in  our  author. 
Why  do  we  protest  against  Popery  if  we  partake  so 
largely  of  it  ?  Judaism  was  peculiar  in  its  attach- 
ment to  ordinances,  and  we  cheerfully  leave  it  to  the 
enlightened  world  to  say  if  Immersionists  and  Ro- 
4 


88  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

man  Catholics  do  not  make  more  ado  about  ordi* 
nances  than  all  others.  The  Immersers  admit  no 
one  to  partake  with  them  of  the  emblems  of  the  Sa- 
viour's dying  love,  unless  he  has  been  immersed  in 
water.  Thej  preach  more  about  ^immersion  than 
about  anything  else.  It  is  rarely  omitted  in  a  single 
sermon.  Compare  these  facts  with  the  fastidious  ad- 
herence of  Jewish  formalists  to  the  outward  things 
of  the  law,  and  it  will  be  easy  to  determine  where 
Judaism  reigns. 

2.  "  Their  evangelical  spirituality  is  Baptist  !" 
An  arrogant  assumption,  iadeed !  Luther  getting 
"  evangelical  spirituality"  from  Munzer  !  and  Meth- 
odists, Congregatioualists,  and  Presbyterians  bor- 
rowing evangelism  from  Campbellite,  Mormon,  Two- 
seed,  and  other  Dippers !  What  an  idea  !  Borrow 
"  evangelical  spirituality"  from  Autinomian,  Sabbath- 
breaking  Dippers  !  fromlmmerslonist  ministers  una- 
ble to  write  their  own  name  to  a  bond  !  and  boasting 
that  they  have  no  "larnin" — that  they  "never  rub- 
bed their  backs  against  college  walls !"  From 
"  Baptists,"  rent  into  a  thousand  schisms  about  mis- 
sions, temperance,  the  resurrection,  two-seedism,  &c. ! 
"  Baptists  !"  who,  until  quite  recently,  would  sooner 
excommunicate  a  man  for  uniting  with  a  Temperance 
Society,  a  Sunday  School,  or  a  Bible  Class,  than  for 
drunkenness  !  They  the  fathers  and  conservators  of 
evangelism  !  They  the  fountain  of  "  evangelical 
spirituality !"  and  this  day  their  bigotry  will  more 


EVILS    OF    DR.  'lIOWELL.  39 

promptly  excommunicate  a  member  for  celebrating 
a  Saviour's  love  with  other  Christians  than  for  gross 
immoralities  ! 

These  are  dreadful  facts ;  but  they  are  known  to 
the  world.  They  are  facts  over  which  we  should 
draw  the  veil  of  cliarity  forever,  especially,  since  of 
late  years  there  has  been  a  decided  improvement  in 
the  intelligence  and  the  morals  of  Immersionists ; 
but  when  they  come  forward  before  the  world  with 
the  arrogant  claim  of  being  the  fathers  and  only 
supporters  of  '-evangelical  spirituality,"  the  claims 
of  religion  require  that  their  self-conceit  be  exposed, 
and  their  own  good  demands  that  they  be  reminded 
of  the  hole  of  the  pit  from  whence  they  were  digged. 
They  owe  a  debt  of  gratitude  also  to  the  steady  pi- 
ety of  those  whom  the}'  scorn.  But  for  the  learn- 
ing and  "evangelical  spirituality"  of  others,  the 
light  of  "  the  Baptists"  had  sunk  in  darkness,  an- 
tinomianism,  fatality,  and  formalism.  I  am  well 
aware  that  there  are  individuals  in  the  Immersing 
churches  to  whom  the  foregoing  facts  do  not  apply. 
Still  they  contribute  their  money  and  lend  their  in- 
fluence to  circulate  such  intolerable  slander  and  in- 
sult on  all  other  Christians;  and  they  must  be  held 
responsible  for  it  until  they  publish  to  the  world 
their  protest  against  the  circulation  of  the  slanders 
of  this  book  published  by  their  own  denominational 
societies.  I  ask  them  to  look  back  but  a  few  years, 
and  consider  what  the   Immersionist   church    then 


40  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

was,  and  say,  in  the  light  of  facts,  if  it  be  decent  in 
them  to  claim  the  credit  of  all  the  "  evangelical 
spirituality  "  which  shone  with  steady  lustre  among 
others,  when  Immersionists  were  sunk  in  all  the  im- 
morality and  ignorance  which  are  naturally  engen- 
dered by  antinomianism  and  fcitality.  Immersionists 
must  know,  then,  that  they  cannot  practice  with  im- 
punity such  intemj^erate  slander  on  others. 

That  the  world  may  see  the  truth  of  what  I  here 
assert,  and  that  the  Immersers  may  better  appre- 
ciate their  obligations  to  others,  I  beg  leave  to  intro- 
duce the  testimony  of  an  Immersionist  writer  on  this 
subject,  who,  it  will  be  seen,  is  better  informed  as  to 
the  fticts  than  our  author.     It  is  as  follows  : 

"  Previous  to  the  commencement  of  the  present 
century,  our  theology  was  principally  of  that  cramped 
and  crabbed  kind  now  usually  known  as  Hyper-Cal- 
vinism ;  the  aspect  of  our  churches  was  repulsive  to 
all  who  had  been  brought  up  within  their  pale,  and 
of  these  an  immense  proportion,  as  they  grew  up, 
entered  the  world  and  were  lost  to  the  Saviour's 
kingdom.  The  sad  prominence  which  was  given  to 
the  fatalistic  principles  of  a  pseudo-Calvinism,  equal- 
ly deterred  the  bulk  of  religious  professors  from 
seeking  the  conversion  of  their  own  children  and 
attempting  to  make  any  conquests  in  the  unbelieving 
multitude  around.  Happily  for  us,  the  sledge-ham- 
mer of  the  Northamptonshire  theologian  shattered 
this   system    to   pieces,  and  then,   to  complete  the 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  41 

work,  the  simple-minded  devotion  of  William  Carey, 
the  practical  logic  of  such  men  as  Sutcliffe  and  Ry- 
land,  and  the  angelic  piety  of  Samuel  Pearce,  cast 
in  the  seed  of  better  sentiments.  It  was  an  appeal 
to  Christian  sympathy  from  the  aberrations  of 
Christian  doctrine,  and  the  effect  was  triumphant. 
The  debates  of  theologians  might  have  led  to  the 
ruin  of  existing  organizations,  without  building  up 
anything  better;  but  commiseration  for  the  spiritual 
condition  of  the  heathen  awoke  the  slumbering  life 
of  the  Church  ;  life  produced  harmony  of  belief;  the 
soul-benumbing  dogmas  which  had  so  long  held  it  in 
bondage  were  cast  off,  and  a  glorious  fabric  was  com- 
menced, which  is  still  going  on,  destined  to  receive 
its  top-stone  some  day.  London  partook  of  this 
influence,  and  owes  to  it,  at  this  hour,  any  extending 
signs  of  life  which  seem  to  appear. 

"  The  numerous  class  of  churches  within  the  me- 
tropolitan boundaries  of  which  I  have  already  spoken, 
as  still  retaining  much  of  what  was  harsh  and  repul- 
sive in  the  theology  of  the  kst  century,  continue,  for 
the  most  part,  to  stand  aloof  from  Missions,  but 
still,  from  time  to  time,  a  secession  is  taking  place ; 
one  after  another  shows  symptoms  of  relenting;  per- 
haps a  collection  on  behalf  of  the  Foreign  Mission  is 
allowed.  This  is  a  small  thing,  but  it  is  enough ; 
the  thin  edge  of  the  wedge  introduces  the  thicker 
part,  and  the  moment  such  a  collection  is  systemat- 
ically allowed,  the  church  which  grants  the  boon  fixes 
4* 


42  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

also  its  own  destiny.  The  process  may  be  a  lengthy 
one,  but  sooner  or  later  its  old  trammels  will  be 
thrown  away,  and  it  will  stand  forth  as  a  champion 
for  truth  and  salvation  in  a  dying  world." 

This  Immersionist  does  not  seem  to  think  that 
other  Christians  were  much  indebted  to  "  Baptists 
for  evangelical  spirituality." 

As  our  author  does  not  inform  us  wherein  the 
other  Christian  denominations  resemble  Roman 
Catholics,  except  in  infant  baptism,  we  may  content 
ourselves  for  the  present  with  knowing  that  none  of 
us  have  more  resembled  them  in  immorality  than 
the  Immersers ;  and  we  rejoice  in  bearing  testimony 
to  their  improvement  of  late  in  "  evangelical  spiritu- 
ality;" and  while  we  thank  God  for  that,  we  rebuke 
them  before  the  world  for  arrogantly  claiming  the 
praise  of  all  the  piety  found  in  other  churches.  If, 
instead  of  slandering  their  benefactors,  by  the  light 
of  whose  piety  they  have  been  elevated  to  intelli- 
gence and  a  better  morality,  they  would  now  unite 
heart  and  hand  with  those  who  have  helped  them,  to 
enlighten  and  save  others,  they  would  be  rendering 
better  service  than  in  proud,  empty  boasts  of  them- 
selves, and  detraction  of  others. 

It  is  surely  the  lowest  species  of  reasoning  to  find 
the  condemnation  of  a  point  in  the  fact  that  it  is 
held  by  Eoman  Catholics,  since  they  are  known  to 
hold  many  fundamental  truths.  There  is  little 
doubt  but  the  Greek  church  is  even  more  corrupt 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  43 

than  the  Catholic,  and  jet  it  practices  both  immer- 
sion and  infant  baptism.  The  Mormons,  also,  who 
are  nothing  superior  to  the  very  worst  of  men,  ad- 
here with  great  tenacity  to  immersion.  Now,  if  im- 
mersion is  not  to  be  abandoned,  because  it  is 
practiced  by  bad  men,  let  Dr.  Howell,  in  his  next 
edition,  show  how  the  same  argument  avails  against 
infant  baptism. 

In  considering  the  argument  for  infant  baptism 
drawn  from  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  our  author  saj-s, 
"  It  proves  immeasurably  too  much."  This  sense- 
less, but  popular,  aphorism  is  in  the  mouth  of  every 
sciolist.  When  such  a  one  wishes  to  appear  pro- 
found, and  knows  nothing  else  to  say,  he  is  sure  to 
begin  with  this  or  some  kindred  saying.  ''  It  proves 
too  much  "  !  Too  much  of  what  ?  Does  it  prove 
too  much  truth  ?  or  too  much  falsehood  ?  No  argu- 
ment ever  can  prove  that  to  be  true,  which  is  false. 
Then  there  can  be  no  danger  of  proving  too  much 
falsehood  ;  and  none  but  the  guilty  will  be  likely  to 
suffer  with  the  apprehension  that  any  argument  can 
prove  too  much  truth. 

Unless,  then,  this  argument  proves  too  much  for  the 
Immersionists  to  answer,  it  is  difficult  to  see  in  what 
sense  the  terms  can  be  used,  and  even  this,  I  appre- 
hend, might  be  done  without  much  endangering  the 
highest  happiness  of  the  human  family. 

But  our  author  shall  say  what  this  argument 
proves,  that  ought  not  to  be  proved. 


44  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

1.  He  thinks  the  principles  involved  in  the  argu- 
ment for  infant  baptism,  which  is  drawn  from  the 
Abrahamic  covenant  and  circumcision,  would  prove 
episcopacy  also,  which  is  one  thing  too  much.  Let 
us  briefly  examine  this  point.  This  argument  for  in- 
fant baptism  runs  thus : 

The  church  has  always  existed  under  the  same 
covenant ;  for  in  all  ages  "  they  which  be  of 
faith  are  blessed  with  faithful  Abraham — that 
the  blessing  of  Abraham  might  come  on  the  Gen- 
tiles through  Jesus  Christ — and  if  ye  be  Christ's, 
then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed  and  heirs  according 
to  the  promise :  therefore  it  is  of  faith,  that  it 
might  be  by  grace,  to  the  end  that  the  promise  might 
be  sure  to  all  the  seed  ;  not  to  that  only  which 
is  of  the  law,  but  to  that  also  which  is  of  the 
faith  of  Abraham;  who  is  the  father  of  us  all." — 
See  Gal.  3  :  9,  14,  29.  Rom.  4 :  16.  Now  as  every 
Gentile  believer  becomes  a  child  of  Abraham,  and 
an  heir  of  every  blessing  promised  to  him  in  the  true 
sense  of  the  promises,  we  argue  thus  : 

Jewish  circumcision  before  Christ  was  one  out- 
ward seal  of  faith. 

Baptism  has  always  been  an  outward  seal  of  faith. 

Circumcision  and  baptism  are,  therefore,  outward 
seals  of  the  same  thing. 

But  in  the  days  of  circumcision  it  was  adminis- 
tered as  a  seal  to  infants. 

Since,  then,  baptism  is  a  seal  of  the  same  thing, 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  45 

and  all  believers  inherit  the  same  blessing  under  the 
same  covenant  with  Abraham,  their  children  must 
also  receive  the  seal  of  faith,  which  is  baptism. 

According  to  Dr.  Howell,  the  argument  for  epis- 
copacy runs  thus : 

*'  In  the  Jewish  church  there  were  three  orders  in 
the  ministry,  each  a  grade  above  the  other  in  dignity 
and  authority ;  the  chief  priests,  the  common  priests, 
and  the  Levites.  There  are.  therefore,  three  orders 
in  the  ministry  of  the  Christian  church.  It  is  the 
same  church  and  under  the  same  covenant." 

Thus  Dr.  H.  thinks  the  argument  proves  "  too 
much."  It  proves  episcopacy,  which  ought  never  to 
be  proved  by  anybody,  or  by  any  argument !  But 
if  we  mean  to  be  candid  men,  we  must  never  object 
to  the  point  established  by  an  argument.  We  must 
examine  the  argument  itself,  and  see  whether  it  be 
valid.  If  it  be  valid,  let  it  stand  with  all  that  it 
proves,  as  truth.  If  the  argument  be  found  invalid, 
let  it  be  rejected  as  worthless,  and  proving  nothing 
at  all.  If  a  valid  argument  prove  episcopacy,  let 
episcopacy  stand  as  true;  but  never  let  us  reject  an 
argument,  because  it  proves  some  point  which  we  do 
not  wish  to  have  proved.  This  is  ^;r^'?({<r/zce,  and 
must  forever  prevent  our  receiving  the  truth,  even 
when  proved.  This  method  would  put  an  everlast- 
ing period  to  all  reasoning;  since  every  one  must 
have  an  equal  right  to  choose  for  himself  what  he 
would  not  agree  to  have  proved  to  him  ;  and  on  our 


46  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

author's  ground,  he  might  conclude  that  any  such 
point  is  "  too  much  "  to  be  proved,  and  so  reject  it. 
When  he  argues  for  immersion,  I  might  dispose  of 
his  whole  argument,  by  simply  remarking,  That  is 
"  too  much." 

The  only  case  in  which  we  may  assail  the  point 
supposed  to  be  proved  by  any  argument,  is  in  what 
logicians  call  the  reductio  ad  absurdum^  where  we 
demonstrate  the  conclusion  to  be  an  absurdity,  and 
thence  infer  the  unsoundness  of  the  argument,  on  the 
ground  that  no  sound  argument  can  prove  an  absur- 
dity to  be  true.  In  all  other  cases  we  examine  the 
argTiment  itself.  But  our  author  seems  to  admit 
the  proper  connection  between  the  terms  of  the  argu- 
ment under  consideration,  but  objects  to  the  conclu- 
sion, simply  on  the  ground  that  it  proves  what  ought 
not  to  be  proved.  He  makes  no  attempt  at  the 
reductio  ad  absurduin^  and  well  for  him  he  does 
not;  for  no  one  can  show  that  episcopacy  is  a  blank 
absurdity. 

As  to  the  three  orders  in  the  ministry  of  the  Jew- 
ish church,  we  find  them  all  in  the  Immersion ist 
church.  There  is  the  chairman,  or  moderator,  of 
their  Association,  answering  exactly  to  the  Jewish 
"  high  priest."  There  is  the  great  body  of  the  min- 
istry, or  elders,  answering  exactly  to  the  "common 
priests."  There,  also,  are  the  deacons,  answering 
exactly  to  the  Levites.  Immersionists  also  believe 
that   their  elders  are  cpiscopoi^  that  is,  huhops.     So 


EVILS    OF   DR.    HOWELL.  47 

there  is  the  episcopacy  of  the  Old  Testament  and 
the  New  in  the  Immersionist  church !  and  it  is  no 
wonder  the  Doctor  admits  the  argument  as  valid, 
sound  and  logical,  since  it  is  the  corner-stone  of  his 
church  polity.  But  it  is  truly  wonderful  that  he  re- 
jects infant  baptism,  simply  because  it  is  "  too  much  ;" 
since  he  admits  that  the  principles  of  the  argument 
are  the  very  same  in  both  cases. 

But  Dr.  H.  may  plead  that  although  he  uses  the 
simple  term  "  episcopacy,"  he  means  diocesa7i  "  epis- 
copacy." Well,  well,  with  that  we  have  nothing 
to  do  at  present.  But  if  the  Doctor  admits  the 
validity  of  the  argument  as  proving  diocesan  episco- 
pacy, he  ought  to  become  a  prelatical  Episcopalian, 
and  drop  what  he  now  deems  as  scriptural  episco- 
pacy, instead  of  complaining  that  the  argument 
proves  "  too  much."  If  my  argument  related  to 
that  form  of  episcopacy  instead  of  infant  baptism,  I 
should  think  it  worth  while  to  raise  these  questions — 
How  fir  are  the  Jewish  priests  the  representatives 
of  the  Christian  ministry,  and  how  far  did  they  rep- 
resent the  mediatorial  offices  of  Jesus  Christ?  Did 
the  chief  priest,  or  high  priest,  the  ordinary  priest, 
and  the  Levite,  occupy  different  grades  of  the  same 
office,  or  were  they  appointed  each  to  the  discharge 
of  sjjeci/ic  duties,  co-ordinate  in  importance  ?  How 
far  were  the  prophets  the  representatives  of  the 
Christian  ministry  1  Are  not  all  believers  priests  in 
the  very  same  sense  ? 


48  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

Now,  as  the  complaint  of  our  author  is  not  against 
the  soundness  of  the  argument,  but  simply  that  it 
"  proves  too  much,"  and  as  its  validity  in  relation  to 
their  ecclesiastical  polity  is  admitted  by  him  and  the 
whole  '•  Baptist  church,"  I  leave  it  for  him  and  them 
to  answer  the  questions  relating  to  diocesan  episco- 
pacy, and  to  invalidate  all  its  force  in  support  of  that 
form  of  episcopacy,  or  to  continue  their  wail  that  it 
"  proves  too  much."  Our  conclusion  is,  that  by  our 
author's  own  showing,  the  same  argument  that 
establishes  the  polity  of  "  the  Baptist  church,"  also 
proves  infant  baptism. 

2.  Another  point  which  our  author  deems  as 
proved  by  the  same  argument  that  proves  infant 
baptism,  he  thinks  is  quite  "too  much."  It  is  this : 
"  The  Jewish  church  was  a  national  church,  and  the 
Christian  church  is  the  same  church ;  therefore  the 
Christian  church  must  be  a  national  church.  You 
will  perceive,  therefore,  that  we  have  a  divine  com- 
mand for  the  union  of  church  and  state." 

As  we  can  think  of  no  more  direct  way  of  con- 
vincing our  author  that  this  syllogism  is  incorrect, 
we  beg  him  not  to  be  displeased  while  we  evolve  its 
beauties  on  himself,  thus : 

The  Eight  Reverend  John  Hughes,  Bishop  of 
New  York,  is  a  D.D. 

But  Ilev.  R.  B.  C.  Howell  is  the  same : 

Therefore  Rev.  R.  B.  C.  Howell,  D.D.,  is  the 
Right   Reverend   John   Hughes,  D.J).,  Bishop  of 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  49 

New  York.  That  is  "  too  much,"  to  be  sure ;  but 
the  good  of  it  is,  there  is  no  truth  in  the  argument. 
Yet  it  is  the  same  argument  as  that  by  which  Dr.  H. 
would  prove  that  the  Christian  church  must  be  a  na- 
tional church,  because  it  is  the  same  church  as  the 
Jewish,  The  Jewish  church  was  the  same  church 
after  it  was  united  with  the  state  as  before  that 
union.  When  it  is  said  that  the  church  is  the  same 
in  all  ages,  the  plain  import  of  the  language  is,  that 
the  church  has  alwa^^s  stood  under  the  same  consti- 
tution, the  same  fundamental  laws,  and  is  the  same 
body  in  the  sense  that  the  state  remains  the  organic 
body  so  long  as  the  fundamental  principles  of  the 
constitution  remain  the  same,  though  it  pass  through 
many  generations,  and  though  its  statutory  laws  be 
often  repealed  and  re-enacted.  Nor  can  the  vicissi- 
tudes of  adversity,  prosperity,  declension  and  prog- 
ress, affect  its  identity.  Factitious  circumstances, 
or  external  appendages,  can  no  more  change  the 
identity  of  a  church,  state,  or  other  body  politic, 
than  a  man's  office  or  clothing  can  change  his  per- 
sonal identity.  The  circumstance  of  a  church  being 
united  to  a  state,  or  disunited,  affects  its  identity  no 
more  than  the  mixture  of  sand  and  sugar  affects  the 
nature  of  one  or  the  other. 

Our  author  asks,  "  Are  you  a  Pedo-baptist  ?     To 

be  consistent  you  must  be  a  Papist. — Infant  baptism 

— popery,  the  union  of  church  and  state,  the  mass, 

cardinals,  robes,  all — stand  or  fall  together."     We 

5 


50  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

would  respectfully  remind  oiir  author  that  the  day 
is  rapidly  hastening  when  the  church  and  state,  puri- 
fied and  elevated,  shall  again  be  lost  in  a  grand  and 
holy  union — when  the  kingdoms  of  this  world  shall 
become  the  kingdoms  of  our  Lord.  Then,  if  infant 
baptism  and  the  union  of  the  church  and  state 
"  stand  or  fall  together,"  infant  baptism  will  stand 
aloft,  when  the  kingdom  of  Christ  makes  this  happy 
and  glorious  union.  Amen!  let  the  day  hasten; 
then,  by  their  own  admission,  the  Immersers  will 
cease  to  exclude  infants  from  the  church  and  king- 
dom of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ-<-then  the  church  and 
the  state  shall  be  one,  and  the  Immersers,  swallowed 
up  in  the  glory,  shall  forget  their  exclusive  bigotry, 
and  practice  infant  baptism  in  the  union  of  church 
and  state  during  the  long  millennial  reign.  This 
may  now  be  deemed  "  too  much  "  to  be  proved  ;  but 
if  Dr.  H.  has  not  admitted  '^  too  much  "  in  saying 
that  "infant  baptism  and  the  union  of  church  and 
state — stand  or  fall  together,"  the  conclusion  is  just 
as  certain  as  that  the  church  and  state  will  be  one 
under  the  millennial  reign  of  Christ. 

3.  Our  author,  in  the  next  place,  grows  rather 
vehement  against  Judaizing  teachers;  and  if  there 
were  any  now  in  tlie  church  who  insisted  on  circum- 
cising their  infants,  or  adults — if  any  wished  now  to 
introduce  the  tabernacle,  or  temple  service  into  the 
church,  we  should  say  that  his  exhortation,  if  couched 
in  more  respectful  language,  would   do   good.     It 


EVILS    OF    DR.    nOWELL.  51 

may,  perhaps,  be  beueficial  to  tliose  branches  of  the 
Immersionist  sect  Tvho,  even  yet,  are  so  wanting  in 
"  evangelical  spirituality  "  as  to  teach  that  baptism 
is  essential  in  order  to  pardon  and  salvation^  which 
was  a  doctrine  of  formalist  Jews.  He  says:  "  As 
some  of  the  Canaanites  were  leffc  in  Israel,  so  Juda- 
ism remained  in  the  church  to  try  the  faith  of  the 
people  of  God."  It  is  true  that  some  among  "the 
Baptists,"  Episcopalians,  Roman  Catholics,  and  the 
Greek  church,  still  give  an  undue  importance  to 
ordinances,  and  exclude  all  others  from  their  fellow- 
ship on  account  of  some  ritual  dogmas  of  their  own; 
but  the  light  is  increasing,  and  those  baptized  in  in- 
fancy are  brought  up  to  understand  the  gospel  bet- 
ter; and,  on  the  whole,  we  are  encouraged  to  hope 
the  day  is  not  far  distant  when  these  errors  will  give 
way  to  "  evangelical  spirituality." 

4.  The  next  position  of  our  author  is,  that  the 
argument  for  infant  baptism,  drawn  from  the  Abra- 
hamic  covenant,  "  fails  entirely  ;  because  it  perverts, 
and  renders  wholly  unintelligible,  the  true  scriptural 
analogy  of  the  church."  He  says:  "  Pedo-baptists 
call  the  argument  for  infant  baptism,  which  we  are 
now  combating,  analogy ;  but  it  is  in  truth  identi- 
ty.'''' The  language  is  here  very  loose — no  Pedo- 
baptist  would  use  it.  The  argument  is  neither 
analogy  nor  identity  ;  but  is  drawn  by  analogy  from 
the  same  principles,  and  the  identity  of  the  church  in 
all  dispensations  is  a  necessary  part  of  the  argument. 


52  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

When  the  Imiiierslonists  prove  that  we  Gentiles 
do  not  become  the  children  of  Abraham  and  heirs 
of  all  the  blessings  promised  to  him,  we  shall  be 
compelled  to  give  up  the  identity  of  the  church,  and 
then  we  must  give  up  this  argument  for  infant  bap- 
tism, drawn  not  from  the  identitij^  but  the  analogy^ 
of  circumcision  and  baptism,  as  being,  both  of  them, 
seals  of  faith  in  Christ.  Our  author  tells  us  :  "  The 
whole  Jewish  church,  therefore,  was  a  figure,  or 
type,  of  the  Christian  church."  Then,  we  ask, 
where  are  the  infants  ?  A  strange  sort  of  type,  this, 
if  infants  are  not  permitted  to  enter  the  Christian 
church,  when  the  type  contained  them. 

But  our  author,  foreseeing  this  difficulty,  sets 
forth  a  rule  in  hermeneutics  which  he  does  his  best 
to  establish  by  human  authority,  because  no  divine 
authority  could  be  found.  The  law  he  gives  us  in 
these  words:  "  No  ea;te;-?i<2/ institution,  or  fact,  in  the 
Old  Testament  is  a  type  of  an  external  institution, 
or  fiict,  in  the  New  Testament.  External  institu- 
tions and  facts  in  the  Old  Testament  are  invariably 
types  of  internal  and  spiritual  institutions  and  facts 
in  the  New  Testament." 

I  must  confess  that  I  am  at  a  loss  to  determine  to 
my  own  satisfaction  the  meaning  of  this  language. 
I  suppose  that  a  "  spiritual  institution  "  is  intended 
for  some  outward  institution,  having  a  spiritual 
meaning.  I  know  of  no  institution  which  h  spiritual 
in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word,  which,  so  far  as  I 


EVILS    OF    DK.    HOWELL.  53 

know,  is  always  used  to  denote  something  incorporeal, 
not  material,  or  visible — something  refined  from  ex- 
ternal things.  Then,  it  seems  to  me  that,  while 
many  of  our  institutions  have  meanings  truly  refined 
and  spiritual,  they  themselves  are  of  necessity  con- 
fined to  what  is  material  and  visible,  I  remark, 
then,  that  Jesus  our  Saviour  was  a  visible  person, 
and  that  in  heaven  He  still  wears  this  visible  body 
with  the  scars  of  His  crucifixion  in  it.  In  this  very 
body  He  was  openly  and  visibly  crucified  on  the  cross 
before  the  eyes  of  the  multitude.  Abraham,  Moses, 
David  and  others,  were  visible  persons,  and  per- 
formed visible  acts,  typical  of  Him  and  His  acts. 
The  bleeding  lamb  and  other  sacrifices  were  visible 
types  of  Him  who  not  only  ofi"ered  His  soul  to  God, 
but  His  body  was  crucified,  and  His  real,  visible, 
material  blood  flowed  out  in  sight  of  His  crucifiers 
and  others,  as  did  the  blood  of  the  typical  sacrifices ; 
and  Paul  tells  us  that  "  the  bodies  of  those  beasts, 
whose  blood  is  brought  into  the  sanctuary  by  the 
high  priest,  were  burned  without  the  camp,"  and  in 
fulfilment  of  that  type  Jesus  "sufiered  without  the 
gate." 

No  matter,  then,  how  many,  nor  how  great,  are 
the  human  names  brought  forward  in  support  of  this 
hermeneutical  law,  it  must  be  set  aside  as  unconsti- 
tutional, and,  therefore,  null  and  void ;  and  of  no 
'more  force  than  if  the  same  had  never  been  enacted 
by  great  men.  And,  indeed,  so  obviously  is  this  rule 
5* 


64  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

opposed  to  the  general  tenor  of  the  Scriptures,  that 
our  author  contradicts  it  himself  on  the  next  page, 
where  he  says :  "  They  [the  sacrifices]  were  all  types, 
and  pointed  to  the  great  sacrifice  in  the  person  of 
Christ,  to  be  in  the  fulness  of  time  offered  by  Him 
on  the  cross."  He  then  tells  us,  '•  In  the  Jewish 
church  ofi"erings  were  presented  to  God  in  behalf  of 
the  people  by  the  priests  only ;  [but]  in  the  Christian 
church  sacrifices  are  spiritual — the  sacrifices  of  G-od 
are  a  broken  spirit;  a  broken  and  a  contrite  heart." 
It  is  unutterably  strange  that  one  of  such  standing 
would  venture  to  quote  from  Ps.  51  :  17,  these  words 
to  prove  that  all  spirituality  is  in  the  Christian 
church,  and  that  there  was  none  in  the  Jewish.  Can 
it  be  that  Dr.  H.  supposes  all  his  readers  to  be  so 
ignorant  of  the  Bible  as  not  to  know  that  Old  Tes- 
tament saints  understood  the  ofl"ering  of  spiritual 
sacrifices  to  God  ? 

It  is  not  only  vain  and  foolish,  but  it  is  wicked, 
thus  to  slander  the  holy  prophets,  who  warned  the 
people  not  to  trust  in  oblations,  but  to  ofi'er,  in  faith 
and  deep  repentance,  the  pure  affections  of  the  heart 
to  God.  The  Immersionists  very  well  know  that  in- 
fant baptism  will  be  practiced  so  long  as  the  inspired 
and  holy  prophets  are  revered.  They  know  that 
their  only  prospect  of  success  in  argument  against  it, 
is  to  bring  reproach  on  the  prophets  to  whom  Christ 
and  the  apostles  referred  for  authority.  They  scan- 
dalize as  sensualists  the  men  who  lived  and  walked 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  55 

by  faith — "  who  through  faith  subdued  kingdoms, 
wrought  righteousness,  obtained  promises,"  &e.  A 
large  part  of  the  work  before  us  is  merely  a  tirade 
of  abuse  on  God's  church  and  God's  prophets,  Moses 
in  particular,  and  on  God's  ordinances.  Infant  bap- 
tism can  never  be  banished  in  this  way.  There  is 
yet  too  much  reverence  for  God's  Word  for  even 
professed  Christians  to  stigmatize  it  out  of  the  esteem 
of  the  men  of  faith  in  God. 

But  the  reader  is  curious  to  know  what  use  the 
Dippers  have  for  the  law,  which  we  have  been  exam- 
ining.    It  is  this: 

Abraham's  natural  children  were  the  types  of 
Christ's  spiritual  children,  and  as  Abraham's  young 
children  were  to  be  circumcised,  so  Christ's  young 
children  are  to  be  baptized  !  Abraham's  babes  were 
not  types  of  the  natural  offspring  of  believers  in  the 
church,  but  of  those  born  of  the  Spirit. 

I  have  already  shown  that  the  principle,  or  rule, 
under  which  this  reasoning  takes  place,  is  un scrip- 
tural, and,  therefore,  the  reasoning  itself  must  be 
erroneous.  But,  the  position  here  taken,  I  wish  to 
offer  the  following  remarks  : 

(a.)  If  it  were  true,  Abraham  must  be  more 
properly  a  type  of  the  Holy  Spirit  than  of  Christ, 
since  all  the  spiritual  children  who  fulfil  the  types 
of  Abraham's  natural  children,  are  begotten  by  the 
Spirit.  I  need  not  say  that  this  is  altogether  con- 
trary to  the  Scriptures.     All  see  it. 


56  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

(b.)  If  this  theory  were  true,  no  one  should  be 
baptized  until  the  eighth  day  after  the  new  birth — 
or,  if  we  take  a  day  for  a  year,  as  is  usual  in  the 
types,  no  one  is  to  be  baptized  till  eight  years  after 
he  is  born  again.  All  this  is  contrary  to  the  prac- 
tice of  the  apostles,  and  that  of  the  Iraraersionists 
themselves,  which  proves  they  do  not  believe  it. 

(c.)  On  these  principles  it  would  be  unlawful  to 
baptize  females  when  born  again  ;  because  the  fe- 
male children  of  Abraham,  who^  according  to  our 
author,  are  the  types  of  regenerated  females,  were 
not  circumcised. 

(d.)  If,  as  our  author  declares,  circumcision  alone 
introduced  the  natural  children  of  Abraham  into  the 
Jewish  church,  then  no  female  ever  was  a  member 
of  that  Church.  This  is  contrary  to  a  thousand  re- 
corded facts,  and  proves  our  author^s  theory  to  be 
false.  Baptism  was  initiatory  then  as  now,  and  fe- 
males were  introduced  by  baptism.  No  one  at  any 
time  could  visibly  enter  the  kingdom  without  being 
born  of  water.  Circumcision  sealed  one's  faith  in 
the  promise  that  the  Son  of  God  should  be  born  of 
the  seed  of  Abraham  ;  and  it  taught  that  he  was  not 
to  be  begotten  by  man,  but  by  the  power  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  Baptism  always  sealed  one's  faith  in 
the  forgiveness  of  sins  through  Jesus  Christ,  and  on 
that  account  it  has  always  been  regarded  as  initiatory. 
From  the  earliest  times  it  was  administered  to  in- 
fants, without  regard  to  sex,  and  still  continues  so 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  57 

to  be  administered.  We  have  abundantly  proved 
already  that  infant  baptism  was  administered  at 
least  as  early  as  the  days  of  Jacob,  and  has  been 
continued  without  intermission  to  the  present  time. 

(e.)  Our  author  would  do  well,  while  railing  on 
Judaism,  to  remember  that  baptism  was  the  most 
prominent  ordinance  in  that  system,  and  no  ordi- 
nance was  more  abused.  Most  of  the  Levitical  or- 
dinances ceased  at  the  coming  of  the  Saviour ;  be- 
cause, as  types,  they  were  fulfilled  ;  and  could  be  of 
no  further  use.  Bat  baptism,  pointing  to  the  for- 
giveness of  sins,  has  for  us  the  same  significancy  as 
for  them.  Ancient  saints  believed  and  were  bap- 
tized, and  their  children  also,  and  ever  since,  in  every 
age,  men  believe  and  are  baptized,  and  why  should 
not  the  children  be  still  baptized  as  formerly  ? 

(f.)  Although  our  author's  theory,  making  Abra- 
ham's adult  children  the  types  of  adult  believers, 
and  his  infant  children  the  types  of  newly-converted 
persons,  addresses  itself  pleasantly  enough  to  the 
fancy,  it  has  nothing  for  the  understanding.  It  is  at 
variance  with  all  the  facts  in  the  case.  It  is  a 
glorious  truth  that  the  children  of  Abraham  were 
typical — they  were  in  the  house  of  bondage — they 
passed  through  the  sea,  the  wilderness,  the  Jordan, 
and  entered  Canaan.  All  this  is  admitted  to  be 
typical ;  but  to  descend,  as  our  author  does,  to  point 
out  the  representative  character  of  each  particular 
class,  and  individual,  is  as  fanciful  as  to  attempt  to 


58  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

show  the  typical  character  of  the  roots,  tendrils, 
leaves,  buds,  bark  and  iBbres  of  the  vine;  because 
Jesus  chose  it  and  its  branches  to  illustrate  the  liv- 
ing union  between  him  and  believers.  He  also 
chose  the  ripe  harvest  of  standing  corn  as  an  illus- 
tration of  the  condition  of  the  world  in  relation  to 
the  preaching -of  the  gospel ;  but  it  would  be  deemed 
very  fanciful  to  take  license  from  that  fact  to  spirit- 
ualize the  dry  blades,  chaiF,  beards,  and  stubble. 

(g.)  Dr.  H.  says:  "A  correspondence  exists  in 
several  respects  between  circumcision  and  baptism  ;" 
and  although  he  allows  both  to  be  initiatory,  he  can- 
not think  that  they  should  correspond  in  respect  to 
introducing  infants  visibly  into  the  church  !  But 
if  he  admit  that  they  correspond  in  any  respect,  why 
deny  that  they  do  in  this  ?  Indeed,  he  is  hard 
pressed  here.  His  only  alternative  is  to  set  forth 
the  natural  infants  of  Abraham  as  types  of  the 
spiritual  infants  of  Christ.  We  should  be  pleased 
in  the  next  edition  of  his  "  Evils  of  Infant  Baptism," 
if  the  Doctor  would  show  us  what  typifies  the  natu- 
ral children  of  believers  ;  since  they  compose  a  large 
part  of  the  blessing  promised  not  only  to  Abraham, 
but  to  other  believei*s  generally.  He  will  surely  be 
compelled  to  give  up  this  theory. 

4.  The  next  step  in  our  author's  progress  is  to 
attack  the  unity  of  the  church  in  all  ages. 

(a.)  He  asks,  "  If  they  (the  ancient  and  present 
church)  were  the  same  church,  why  did  Christ  deny 


E\^LS    OF    DR.    HOVrELL.  59 

it,  when  he  told  the  Jews  that  Jds  was  a  church  un- 
like theirs  f "'  AYe  auswer  that  we  know  of  no  such 
denial,  and  the  Doctor  will  be  again  compelled  to 
call  in  human  authority  to  sustain  his  assertion.  He 
gives  no  allusion  to  scriptural  authority,  and  can 
give  none. 

(b.)  Note  these  words — "  the  Jewish  church  and 
the  Christian  church  the  same  !  It  is  not  the  Epis- 
copalian, the  Presbyterian,  the  Congregational,  the 
Methodist,  nor  any  other  Protestant  church,  since 
Judaized  as  all  these  churches  are,  they  fall  far 
short  of  the  Jewish  church.  Only  the  Catholic  is  a 
tolerable  copy  of  the  origini^l."  Fie  !  fie  1  upon  the 
man  !  Where  was  his  piety  gone,  when  he  wrote 
such  words  about  the  church  that  contained  all  the 
men  of  renowned  faith  in  ancient  days  1  The  church 
in  which  David  and  Asaph  sang — the  church  in 
which  Isaiah  preached,  and  Job  endured,  and  Jere- 
miah wept,  and  Daniel  prayed — ^the  church  of  God 
— the  church  with  which  Grod  dwelt,  to  which  God 
spake  by  urim  and  thummim,  by  prophets  and  wise 
men.  This  is  the  church  of  which,  in  the  esteem 
of  an  Immersionist  minister,  the  Roman  Catholic  is 
the  only  tolerable  copy !  And  why  ?  Because  it 
contained  infants  ?  Then,  sir,  don't  go  to  heaven ; 
for  you  will  find  them  there  thick  around  the  throne, 
and  making  a  large  part  of  the  church  in  glory.  But 
there  is  not  an  infant  in  hell,  nor  "  the  Baptist  church." 


60  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

Show  me  how  a  single  infant  can  enter  either,  and  I 
will  give  it  up. 

(c.)  He  asks  again,  "  Why  did  Messiah  deny  it 
[the  unity  of  the  church]  on  another  occasion,  when 
he  said  :  "  The  law  and  the  prophets  [the  Jewish 
church]  continued  until  John,  since  whom  the  king- 
dom of  heaven  [the  Christian  church]  is  preached, 
and  all  men  press  into  it." 

Here  he  garbles  and  alters  the  Word  of  Grod  so  aa 
to  make  it  suit  his  case.  The  law  and  the  prophets 
were  not  the  Jewish,  any  more  than  the  New  Testa- 
ment and  elders  are  "  the  Baptist,"  church.  The 
Saviour,  in  the  words  quoted,  merely  states  where 
the  dispensation  of  the  law  and  the  prophets  termi- 
nated, and  New  Testament  preaching  began.  He 
asserts  that  every  man  was  pressing  into  the  king- 
dom of  God  even  then  ;  and  our  author  and  most 
of  his  church  deny  that  the  kingdom  of  Grod  was 
come  until  the  day  of  Pentecost.  How  could  men 
be  pressing  into  it,  before  it  had  come  ?  There  is 
not  a  word  in  the  Bible  about  organizing  a  new 
church  at  the  close  of  John's  ministry.  The  gospel 
was  preached  to  the  very  same  church,  which  Christ 
found  in  existence  when  he  came,  and  both  Jesus 
and  John  baptized  at  the  same  time,  receiving  the 
baptized  into  the  same  church  ;  and  yet  John's  min- 
istry belonged  to  the  dispensation  of  the  prophets, 
while  Jesus  preached  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  Here^ 
then,  the  two  dispensations  were  united,  and  the 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  61 

converts  of  both  were  received  into  the  same  church, 
which  proves  the  unity,  instead  of  the  diversity,  of 
the  church.— See  John,  3  :  22,  and  Matt.  21  :  31, 
32. 

(d.)  Again,  Dr.  H.  asks,  "  Why  did  Paul  deny 
tlie  identity  of  the  Jewish  and  Christian  churches  by 
comparing  the  former  to  Hagar  and  her  posterity, 
and  the  latter  to  Sarah  and  hers  ?" 

Any  one  who  will  take  the  trouble  to  turn  to  Gal. 
4  :  24,  &c.,  will  see  that  Agar  is  not  the  Jewish 
church,  but  she  answers  to  "  Jerusalem  ivlvch  now 
is,  and  is  in  bondage  with  her  children,"'  refusing  to 
believe  the  fulfilment  of  the  law  by  the  promised 
seed.  Sarah,  the  free  woman,  and  type  of  Jerusa- 
lem above,  is  the  mother  of  all  believers  of  both 
dispensations,  and  secures  to  all  her  posterity  the 
right  of  introducing  their  infant  offspring  into  the 
same  church  with  themselves  ;  while  Agar,  the  slave 
of  her  own  unbelief,  cuts  off  both  herself  and  her 
children  from  the  covenant  of  mercy,  and  trusts  in 
vain  external  ablutions  instead  of  the  blood  of 
sprinkling.  Sarah  and  her  infant  children  stand  un- 
der the  Abrahamic  covenant,  whose  gracious  bless- 
ings "  came  on  the  Gentiles  through  Jesus  Christ ;" 
but  Agar  stands  under  the  covenant  of  works  in  ex- 
ternal bondage. 

What  shocking  perversions  of  God's  Word  Im- 
mersionists  do  make  in  order  to  get  round  infant 
membership  !  Just  see  how  our  author  makes  Agar 
6 


62  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

the  mother  of  the  Jewish  church,  when  every  one 
knows  that  she  was  the  mother  of  Tshmael,  and  Sarah 
was  the  mother  of  the  Jews.  When  the  Jews  per- 
secuted, rejected  and  crucified  the  Great  Seed, 
promised  to  Sarah,  the  mother  of  all  believers,  they 
joined  themselves  to  persecuting  Ishmael,  and  God 
cut  them  off  from  his  church.  Then,  says  Paul, 
they  were  like  Agar  in  bondage  under  unbelief  Fie  ! 
fie  !  to  represent  Moses,  and  David,  and  Daniel,  as 
the  children  of  Agar  !  and  for  no  other  reason  than 
to  escape  infant  baptism  ! 

This  concludes  the  evidence  for  two  churches,  both 
of  which,  I  suppose,  must  be  the  one  body  and  bride 
of  Christ,  and  these  proofs  are  plainly  on  the  other 
side  of  the  question. 

5.  The  next  step  in  the  progress  of  the  work  be- 
fore us,  is  an  attempt  to  prove  that  the  covenant 
made  with  Abraham  in  Gen.  xii.  &c.,  was  essentially 
different  from  that  in  the  xvii.  Let  us  first  have  our 
author's  views  in  his  own  words ;  and  then  compare 
them  with  the  Scriptures.  "  Abraham,"  he  says, 
"  was  concerned  in  two  covenants,  which  were  made 
at  different  times,  and  related  to  different  things. 
The  former  had  regard  to  Christ,  the  latter  to  his 
natural  posterity.  The  one  was  the  covenant  of 
grace^  the  other  tJte  covenant  of  circumcision,  and 
[they  were]  dissimilar  in  character.  The  covenant 
of  the  law  [or  circumcision]  constituted  the  dispen- 
sation of  Moses,  and  was  the  covenant  of  the  Jewish 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  63 

church  ;  the  covenant  of  the  gospel  (that  made  with 
Abraham  before  circumcision  was  instituted)  is  the 
covenant  of  grace  and  redemption,  the  covenant  of 
the  Christian  church."  The  gospel  covenant — was  not 
really  made  with  Abraham,  but — was  ''  confirmed  to 
Abraham  of  God  in  Christ — it  was  previously  made. 
The  same  covenant  was  announced  to  Adam  in  Eden. 
The  covenant  of  circumcision  was  tnade^  in  the  true 
sense  of  that  word,  imth  Abraliam^  twenty-four  years 
after  the  promise  above  referred  to."  These  ex- 
tracts, it  is  hoped,  will  clearly  show  the  present  im- 
mersional  view  concerning  the  covenants.  On  these 
views  I  wish  to  offer  the  following  remarks : 

(a.)  This  view  is  very  different  from  that  usually 
taken  by  Christians.  The  great  body  of  the  church 
have  understood  the  Scriptures  as  teaching  that  God 
created  Adam  under  the  covenant  of  works  compre- 
hended in  the  ten  commandments — that  God  the 
Father  and  the  Son  entered  into  a  compact  for  the 
redemption  of  sinners,  which  is,  therefore,  called  the 
covenant  of  redemption — and  that  God  in  Christ 
has  formed  and  published  a  new  constitution  for  sin- 
ners who  believe  in  Christ.  However,  let  us  appeal 
to  the  Bible. 

(b.)  Our  author  says  that  the  latter  covenant 
found  in  Gen.  17th  chapter,  "was  7nade  with  Abra- 
ham in  the  true  sense  of  that  word ;"  but  that  the 
former  was  merely  confirmed  to  him.  The  Bible 
says  of  the  latter,  "  I  will  make  my  covenant  between 


64 


EVILS    OF   DR.    HOWELL. 


me  and  thee — I  will  establish  rny  covenant  between 
me  and  thee." — Gen.  17:  2,  7. 

Of  the  former,  it  says  :  "  In  the  same  day  the 
Lord  made  a  covenant  with  Abraham."  If,  then, 
we  make  distinctions  here,  the  latter  m^st  have  the 
preference  as  to  confirmation  ;  because  it  was  estab- 
lished^ and  the  other  was  simply  made^  which  is  the 
very  reverse  of  what  our  author  declares.  An  ex- 
amination of  the  original  will  fully  sustain  this  re- 
mark. So  fearfully  do  men  wander  in  the  dark,  when 
they  forsake  God's  Word,  and  try  to  defend  their 
theories  by  their  own  conceits. 

(c.)  But  Dr.  II.  and  the  Immersion ists  say  that 
there  were  two  covenants  made  with  Abraham — the 
one  of  grace,  the  other  of  words — that  they  were 
"  dissimilar  in  character" — the  one  '•  had  regard  to 
Christ,"  the  other  "to  Abraham's  natural  posterity." 
Let  us  see  what  the  Bible  says  about  this  point. 


THE   FORMER. 

Gen.  12:  2. — "I  will  make 
of  thee  a  great  nation." 

13:  16.— "And  I  will 

make  thy  seed  as  the  dust  of 
the  earth :  so  that  if  a  man 
can  number  the  dust  of  the 
earth,  then  shall  thy  seed  be 
numbered  also." 


THE   LATTER. 

Gen.  17:  2,  4.— "I  will 
multiply  thee  exceedingly, 
and  thou  shalt  be  a  father 
of  many  nations." — Gal.  3 : 
1*7,  18. 

IV  :  6.—"  I  will  make 

thee  exceeding  fruitful,  and 
I  will  make  nations  of  tiiee, 
and  kings  shall  come  out  of 
thee."— Rom.  4:  17. 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 


65 


THE   FOEMER. 

15:  5. — "Look  now 
toward  heaven,  and  tell  the 
stars,  if  thou  be  able  to  num- 
ber them ;  and  he  said  unto 
him,  so  shall  thy  seed  be." — 
Rom.  4:  18. 

Gen.  12:  3. — "I  will  bless 
them  that  bless  thee,  and 
curse  him  that  curseth  thee." 

12 :  1. — "Get  thee  out 

of  thy  country,  and  from  thy 
kindred,  and  from  thy  fa- 
ther's house,  unto  a  land  that 
I  shall  show  thee." 

12:    v.— "Unto   thy 

seed  will  I  give  this  land." 

13:    15.— "All    the 

land  which  thou  seest,  to 
thee  will  I  give  it,  and  to 
thy  seed  forever." 

15:  18.— "Unto  thy 

seed  have  I  given  this  land 
from  the  river  of  Egypt  to 
the  great  river,  the  river 
Euphrates." 


THE   LATTER. 

17:     16.— "I    wiU 

bless  her  (Sarah),  and  she 
shall  be  a  mother  of  na- 
tions." 

Gen.  11:  7. — "I  will  be  a 
God  to  thee  and  thy  seed 
after  thee."— Heb.  11:  16. 

17:    7,  8.— "And   I 

will  establish  my  covenant 
between  me  and  thee,  and 
thy  seed  after  thee  in  their 
generations  for  an  everlast- 
ing covenant,  and  I  will  give 
unto  thee  and  thy  seed  after 
thee  the  land  wherein  thou 
art  a  stranger — all  the  land 
of  Canaan  for  an  everlasting 
possession,  and  I  will  bo 
their  God." 


Let  tlie  reader  notice  that,  in  both  transactions, 
the  land  of  Canaan  is  distinctly  granted  to  Abraham 
and  his  seed  forever.  Let  him  also  notice  that  in 
both  Abraham  receives  the  promise  of  an  innumer- 
able posterity.     Let  him  then  read  Romans,  4th 


66  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

chap.,  and  Gal,  3d  chap.,  and  notice  how  the  Apos- 
tle quotes,  in  the  same  strain  of  argument,  from  one 
or  the  other  of  these  interviews  between  God  and 
Abraham  ;  and  he  will  surely  be  convinced  that  the 
whole  constitutes  one  and  the  same  covenant,  more 
and  more  developed. 

Notwithstanding  these  luminous  facts  stand  blaz- 
ing in  the  Bible,  Dr.  H.  and  the  Immersionist  church 
declare,  in  the  work  before  us,  that  there  were  ''  two 
covenants  dissimilar  in  their  character^'' — That  in 
Gen.  17th,  "  nothing  whatever  is  said  regarding  Mes- 
siah."— That  this  covenant  is  distinguished  from  the 
other  by  the  promise  "  that  his  descendants  should 
be  numerous,  prosperous,  and  happy ;  in  the  second 
place,  that  they  should  possess  a  specified  terri- 
tory," &c.,  all  of  which  the  reader  sees  for  himse(f, 
is  as  distinctly  promised  in  chs.  12,  13  and  15,  as  in 
ch.  17.  What  is  to  be  thought,  and  said,  of  a  man 
who  will  write  statements  contrary  to  the  very  kiier 
of  the  Bible,  and  of  a  church  which  will  print  and 
circulate  them  before  heaven !  Shame !  eternal 
shame  !     Can  it  be  wilful  perversion  1  how  is  it  ? 

Our  author  acknowledges  that  the  covenant  re- 
corded in  the  12th,  13th,  15th  and  22d  chs.  ''is  the 
covenant  of  grace  in  Christ  Jesus — [and]  has  bap- 
tism annexed,"  which,  however,  "  was  not  visibly  ad- 
ministered until  after  the  law."  He  surely  has  for- 
gotten that  Jesus  began  his  ministry,  and  preached 
the  kingdom  of  God,  and  baptized  before  the  close 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  67 

of  John's  ministry.  So  he  is  wrong,  even  granting 
his  own  ground.  But  when  we  remember  that  every 
pro-nise  found  in  Gen.  17th  ch.,  where  circumcision 
is  instituted,  was  made  to  Abraham  before,  and  that 
circumcision  is  merely  added  as  the  seal  of  faith  in 
these  promises,  that  faith  under  the  gospel,  or  new 
covenant,  has  always  been  reckoned  for  righteousness 
unto  the  justification  of  sinners,  and  that  the  Immer- 
sionists,  with  all  their  hatred  of  infant  baptism,  are 
compelled  by  the  burning  light  of  the  Bible,  to  ad- 
mit that  baptism  was  annexed  to  the  covenant  prom- 
ising Abraham  a  numerous  posterity  and  the  land  of 
Canaan — Gen.  12th  ch. — we  have  the  highest  assur- 
ance that  infant  baptism  is  scriptural.  We  see  also 
how  vain  is  the  attempt  to  make  a  distinction  where 
there  is  no  difi"erence.  The  promises  are  in  the  same 
words  throughout  the  intercourse  between  God  and 
Abraham,  and  if  baptism  be  annexed  to  the  promise 
in  the  twelfth  chapter — "  I  will  make  of  thee  a  great 
nation  [and]  unto  thy  seed  will  I  give  this  land'' — 
it  must  also  be  annexed  to  the  promise  in  the  seven- 
teenth— "  I  will  make  thee  exceeding  fruitful  [and] 
I  will  give  to  thee  and  thy  seed  after  thee  all  the 
land  of  Canaan."  From  this  conclusion  the  Immer- 
sionists  can  never  escape.  They  admit,  in  their  own 
book,  that  baptism  is  annexed  to  the  first  promise, 
and,  of  course,  it  must  be  annexed  to  the  other,  con- 
veying the  same  idea,  and  in  almost  the  same  words, 
and  they  are  at  last  forced  to  the  admission  that,  if 
6* 


68  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

the  covenant,  in  chapter  seventeenth,  still  obtains,  in- 
fant baptism  must  follow  of  course.  Then  let  them 
notice  that  it  is  established  for  an  "everlasting  cov- 
enant," and  both  it  and  the  former  grant  to  Abra- 
ham and  his  seed  the  "  land  of  Canaan  for  an  ever- 
lasting possession !"  The  prophets  tell  us  also  that 
Israel  shall  yet  be  gathered  to  that  very  land,  and 
again  possess  their  ancient  inheritance  according  to 
this  promise.  Either,  then,  there  is  but  one  covenant, 
and  infant  baptism  is  secure ;  or  there  will  be  two 
covenants  having  the  very  same  promises,  and  both 
administered  at  the  same  time,  and  infant  baptism 
safe  under  one  of  them.  So  infant  baptism  stands 
secure,  do  as  they  will,  unless  they  recede  from  their 
own  admission. 

Dr.  H.  further  says,  "  Circumcision  and  baptism 
are  both  types;  but  they  are  not  the  same  type  in 
different  forms,  since  circumcision,  according  to  Paul, 
was  a  type  of  regeneration  by  the  Spirit,  and 
baptism,  as  John  avers,  is  a  representation,  or  t^^pe, 
of  the  burial  and  resurrection  of  Christ." — 1  John, 
5:8,  I  see  no  proof  in  the  passage  cited  that  bap- 
tism is  a  type  "  of  the  burial  and  resurrection  of 
Christ."  Be  this  as  it  may,  the  Doctor  admits  that 
circumcision  is  "  a  type  of  regeneration  by  the  Spirit," 
and  the  same  Paul  also  teaches  that  "  he  saved  us 
by  the  washing  of  regeneration  and  renewing  of  the 
Holy  Ghost." — Tit.  3 :  5.  Then  baptism  is  also  a 
type  of  regeneration.     If  one  type  of  regeneration 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  69 

was  applied  to  infants,  why  may  not  the  other  ? 
Again — The  Doctor  elsewhere  admits  that  "  baptism 
is  the  seal  of  faith,"  and  Paul  says  (Rom.  4:  11) 
that  circumcision  was  also  ''  a  seal  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  faith."  If  one  seal  of  faith  be  applied  to 
infants,  why  may  not  the  other? 

In  the  conclusion  of  this  chapter,  our  author  grows 
warm,  and  very  properly  exhorts  us  to  "  cast  out  the 
bond-woman  and  her  son."  This,  by  the  grace  of 
God,  we  purpose  to  do.  Doctor,  will  you  also  open 
the  door,  and  take  in  the  free  woman  and  her  little 
Isaac  ?  It  is  a  hard-hearted  practice  you  Immer- 
sionists  have,  of  shutting  out  the  lambs  of  the  flock. 
The  poor  little  things  are  exposed  to  dogs  and  wolves 
without.  Open  the  door,  and  take  them  in.  The 
dear  little  creatures  are  hungry  without,  and  they 
belong  to  the  kingdom  and  fold  of  Christ.  Let  them 
come  in  and  be  nourished  by  their  mothers.  Give 
them  food  and  drink,  that  they  may  grow  thereby  in 
the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord.  Dear  little 
ones  !  what  have  they  done  to  shut  them  out  ?  Im- 
mersionists  are  the  only  shepherds  in  God's  universe 
that  shut  out  the  lambs  !  It  is  unnatural.  It  is 
cruel.  It  wounds  the  Saviour.  He  loved  them. 
He  took  them  in  his  arms.  He  blessed  them,  and 
said  they  belong  to  his  kingdom.  Then  baptize 
them,  as  you  do  all  the  rest  who  belong  to  his  king- 
dom. Don't  make  your  church  childless  like  the  dark 
world  of  woe.    Make  it  bright  and  joyful,  like  heaven, 


70  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

with  infant  songs.  It  is  a  great  corruption  of  the 
gospel  church  to  pervert  its  covenant  so  as  to  shut 
our  dear  little  children  out  of  the  pale  of  the  cov- 
enant, and  to  exclude  them  from  the  visible  assembly 
of  the  saints.  You  need  not  circumcise  them  now. 
The  Saviour  has  come,  and  all  that  pointed  as  type 
to  him  is  fulfilled  and  set  aside.  But  baptism  in  his 
name  yet  prevails.  They  have  the  name  of  their 
earthly  father  by  birth.  Give  them  the  name  of 
their  heavenly  Father  in  a  birth  by  water.  That 
name  will  do  them  more  good  than  their  earthly 
father's  name ;  and  you  would  deem  it  a  great  mis- 
fortune for  your  son  to  be  deprived  of  your  name. 
Then  don't  cheat  him  out  of  his  Saviour's  name. 


CHAPTEE  lY. 

"  INFANT    BAPTISM    IS   AN   EVIL  ;    BECAUSE    IT    FALSIFIES   THS 
DOCTRINE   OF   UNIVERSAL   DEFRAY  ITT." 

In  resumiDg  our  review  of  this  v.'ork,  the  reader 
may  find  it  to  his  advantage  to  recollect,  that  Dr. 
Howell  attempts  in  the  preceding  chapter  to  show, 
tliat  there  were  two  distinct  covenants  established 
with  Abraham,  one  of  which  he  calls  "  the  covenant 
of  grace,"  and  admits  that  it  is  perpetual,  and  '•  has 
baptism  annexed  "  as  its  seal.  The  other  he  calls 
"  the  covenant  of  the  law,"  and  says  that  circum- 
cision was  its  seal  This  is  new  ground,  an  original 
discovery,  and  is  the  keystone  of  the  Doctor's  arch, 
the  fundamental  principle  of  the  whole  book.  "  The 
old  Baptists  "  used  to  consider  the  covenant  as  one; 
but  denied  the  perpetuity  of  its  obligation.  They  con- 
tended that  the  covenant  was  a  political  arrangement, 
relating  entirely  to  the  Jewish  state.  From  this 
ground  they  were  beaten  by  force  of  arms,  and  com- 
pelled to  retreat  in  the  direction  of  Jordan.  The 
burning  edge  of  Paul's  sword  forced  them  to  capitu- 


72  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

late,  and  confess  that  ^-  tliey  wblcli  be  of  faith  are 
blessed  with  faithful  Abraham — and  if  ye  be  Christ's, 
then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs  according  to 
the  promise.  Therefore  it  is  of  faith,  that  it  might 
be  by  grace ;  to  the  end  that  the  promise  might 
be  sure  to  all  the  seed  ;  not  to  that  only  which 
IS  OF  THE  Law,  but  to  that  also  which  is  of 
THE  faith  of  Abraham."  I  say  the  sword  of  Paul 
drove  the  old  Baptists  from  the  position  that  the 
covenant  was  temporal,  and  related  only  to  the  Jews. 
But  our  modern  Dippers  of  new  translation  propen- 
sity and  notoriety,  have  made  another  intrenchment. 
They  tell  us  there  were  two  covenants  made  with 
Abraham,  the  one  carnal  and  temporal — "  the  cove- 
nant of  the  law  " — confined  to  the  Jews,  and  having 
circumcision  as  its  seal ;  the  other  "  the  covenant  of 
grace,"  which  "  has  baptism  annexed."  But  the 
sword  of  the  Lord  and  of  Paul  is  still  upon  them. 
Paul  truly  declares  that  there  were  "  two  covenants," 
but  he  tells  us  plainly  that  one  of  them  is  ''  from  the 
mount  Sinai,"  and  is  typified  by  Agar,  the  bond- 
maid, and  the  other  is  "the  promise"  given  to 
Abraham,  and  is  typified  by  Sarah,  the  free  woman; 
and  all  believing  Christians  "  are  the  children  of 
promise  "  in  the  same  sense  that  Isaac  was.*  Dr. 
Howell  and  the  Dippers  say  the  two  covenants  were 
given  to  Abraham ;  but  Paul  says  the  covenant  of 
grace  was  given  to  him,  and  that  of  the  law  was 
*  Gal.  4:  22-30. 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  73 

given  to  Moses  at  mount  Sinai,  four  hundred  and 
thirty  years  afterward  !  So  doctors  will  differ,  and 
there  is  a  wide  difference  between  Howell  and  Paul. 
We  have  no  fears  for  the  issue.  Paul  stands  aloft 
on  mount  Zion,  and  Howell,  with  the  Dippers,  is  re- 
treating down  the  dark  valley  of  the  Jordan.  But 
they  must  not  escape.  The  interests  of  the  King, 
who  claims  little  children  as  heirs  of  his  covenant, 
and  members  of  his  kingdom,  require  us  to  pursue 
them  in  the  same  spirit  of  divine  conquest  with  the 
sword  of  the  Lord  and  of  Paul. 

They  confess  that  the  "  covenant  of  grace  "  given 
to  Abraham  "  has  baptism  annexed,''  but  they  deny 
that  infants  are  included  in  that  covenant ;  and  thus 
endeavor  to  escape  the  conclusion,  that  infants  are 
to  be  baptized.  But  in  the  chapter  before  us  we 
have  a  labored  effort  to  prove  the  doctrine  of  univer- 
sal and  total  depravity,  and  that  infants  are  partakers 
of  that  depravity.  Now,  admitting  all  this  to  be 
proved,  it  follows  irresistibly  that  infant  sinners  are 
saved  hy  grace^  or  they  are  not  saved  at  all.  But 
if  they  are  not  within  the  covenant  of  grace,. they 
cannot  be  saved  by  grace,  because  the  covenant  can- 
not operate  beyond  its  own  limits;  and  therefore  in- 
fant sinners  cannot  be  saved.  But  if  infants  are 
saved  by  grace,  they  are  plainly  within  the  operation 
of  the  covenant  of  grace ;  and  if,  as  Dr.  H.  admits, 
"the  covenant  of  grace  has  baptism  annexed,"  in- 
fants being  within  the  operation  of  that  covenant, 
7 


74 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 


are  entitled  to  baptism  ;  and  it  is  a  fearful  breach  of 
the  covenant  for  parents  to  refuse  or  neglect  it. 
Then,  by  their  own  admissions,  the  Dippers  are 
forced  to  take  infant  baptism,  or  infant  damnation ; 
and  the  Bible  commands  them  to  take  infant  bap- 
tism. Put  away,  then,  the  human  notion  of  clipping^ 
and  take  plain  Bible  baptism.  Then  you  will  not 
be  afraid  of  drowning  your  infants,  and  when  that 
fear  is  gone,  you  can  see  that  the  "  covenant  of 
grace,"  which  "  has  baptism  annexed,"  embraces  your 
children,  and  they  can  be  saved,  and  ought  to  be 
baptized. 

But  again.  In  this  device  to  escape  the  doctrine 
of  infant  baptism,  the  Doctor  and  the  Dippers  tell 
us  that  circumcision  was  not  annexed  to  the  cove- 
nant of  grace  given  to  Abraham,  but  to  the  covenant 
of  the  law.  Here  the  divine  sword  is  upon  them 
again  ;  for  it  is  certain  that  circumcision  was  given 
to  Abraham  the  father  of  the  ftiithful,  and  to  Isaac, 
the  free-born  son  of  promise,  and  heir  of  all  the 
blessings  promised  to  Abraham.  If  the  law  had 
circumcision,  it  was  borrowed  from  the  covenant. 
Although  embraced  in  the  law,  it  was  not  of  the  law. 
It  was  given  as  soon  as  there  was  an  heir  to  inherit 
the  promises.  It  foreshadowed  the  fundamental 
truth  that  Messiah  was  to  descend  from  the  great 
patriarch  in  the  female  line  by  the  power  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  without  being  begotten  by  man.  It 
was  "  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith,"  and  "  the 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOAYELL.  75 

law  is  not  of  faith."*  Notice — it  is  "  a  seal " — that 
is,  one  seal ;  for  baptism  was  anotlier  seal  of  the 
same  covenant.  Then,  it  is  plain  that  our  author 
in  taking  the  position  that  circumcision,  which  is 
near  four  hundred  years  older  than  the  law,  was  of 
the  law,  is  egregiously  mistaken,  and  is  again  com- 
pelled to  retreat  before  the  sword  of  the  Lord  and 
of  Paul,  and  where  he  will  make  his  next  intrench- 
ment  remains  to  be  seen.  It  is  plain  that  if  infant 
baptism  ever  be  disproved.  Dr.  H.  must  write  a  new 
book,  and  take  ground  entirely  different.  In  his 
next  work  he  must  prove  that  baptism  is  not  annexed 
to  the  covenant  of  grace,  or  that  all  dying  in  infancy, 
being  beyond  the  operation  of  the  covenant  of  grace, 
are  eternally  damned  in  hell  for  sins  which  tliey 
never  committed.  I  forewarn  him  that  either  prop- 
osition will  be  hard  to  sustain;  and  he  would  do 
well  to  surrender  at  discretion  to  the  power  of  divine 
truth,  and  cease  from  his  feeble  warfare. 

If  I  have  attained  any  definite  understanding  of 
the  book  under  review,  its  fundamental  principle  is 
here  demonstrated  to  be  opposed  to  the  Scriptures, 
and  the  key-stone  of  its  arch  is  broken  to  pieces.  In 
the  light  now  afforded,  it  will  be  easy  to  dispose  of 
all  the  vapor  found  in  the  fourth  compartment  of 
this  strange  conception. 

Here  our  author  lays  out  a  large  amount  of  gra- 
tuitous labor  to  prove  that  all  men  are  sinners,  and 
Eom.  iv.  11.    Gal.  iii.  12. 


76  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

that  everybody  believes  that  all  men  are  sinners, 
and  that  all  infants  are  as  deeply  depraved  as  any 
others.  After  all  this,  he  comes  forth  in  great 
authority  with  the  startling  announcement,  that  infant 
baptism  "  falsifies  the  doctrine  of  universal  depravity." 
This  is  certainly  one  of  the  strangest  conceits  that 
ever  was  cherished  by  a  sane  man.  If  baptism 
had  been  appointed  as  an  ordinance  of  sinless  angels, 
and  we  applied  it  to  infants,  he  might  say  with  some 
face,  that  in  administering  it  to  infants,  we  deny 
their  sinfulness.  But  when  it  is  admitted  by  him- 
self, and  all  Christians,  that  it  is  an  emblematic 
washing  away  of  sin,  and  he  knows,  and  quotes  these 
views  from  every  quarter,  and  still  charges  on  this 
ordinance  the  denial  of  human  depravity,  heavenly 
charity  itself  must  pronounce  such  shuffling  and  quib- 
bling to  evade  the  truth  as  utterly  unworthy  of  a 
child  of  God,  AVhen  Dr.  Howell  dips  a  man  in 
water  for  baptism,  does  he  mean  to  deny  that  that 
man  is  a  partaker  of  the  common  corruption  of  our 
nature  ?  Is  this  the  view  of  all  those  who  are  cir- 
culating his  book  ?  Shame  !  shame  upon  you  !  can 
you  get  nothing  better  than  this  to  circulate  ?  Then 
quit,  and  go  home.  Baptism  proves  that  a  man  is 
not  depraved  !  !  How,  then,  can  it  prove  that  an  in- 
fant is  not  depraved  ?     Fie  !  fie  ! 

But  our  author  and  his  party  shall  speak  in  their 
own  words.  They  say,  "  We  see  in  the  children  of 
all  classes  the  same  inclination  to  evil,  and  the  same 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  77 

estrangement  from  Grod,  more  or  less  strongly  de- 
veloped. The  children  of  religious  parents  are  in- 
volved in  the  same  depravity  to  an  extent  fully  as 
great  as  those  of  others/'  "  Our  brethren,  them- 
selves, notwithstanding  the  doctrine  of  the  holiness 
of  the  children  of  believers,  maintain  and  emphat- 
ically teach  universal  depravity.  They  earnestly 
teach,  that  the  children  of  believers  are  federally 
holy,  and  for  these  and  like  reasons,  are  baptized. 
Persons  cannot  have,  at  birth,  all  these  endowments, 
and  be  at  the  same  time  wholly  corrupt.  Are  such 
corrupt  and  depraved  persons  holy  ?  Are  they  born 
members  of  the  church  ?  Are  they  naturally  inher- 
itors of  all  the  blessings  of  the  covenant  of  grace  ? 
It  is  impossible.  Both  these  propositions  cannot  be 
true.  The  one  falsifies  the  other."  Such,  and  much 
more,  is  their  language  on  this  point. 

The  chief  difficulty  here  seems  to  be  in  reconciling 
the  facts  of  depravity  and  holiness  in  the  same  per- 
sons. To  a  reader  of  the  Bible,  one  would  not  sup- 
pose this  would  be  a  great  task.  I  should  think 
any  plain  Dipper  could  easUy  explain  to  us  how  the 
same  people  could  be  a  "  holy  nation,"  and  still  be 
both  "  stiff-necked "  and  "  rebellious  " — how  the 
"  holy  seed,"  contrary  to  the  divine  command, 
"  mingled  themselves  "  with  other  people, — how  Paul 
could  say,  "  Else  were  your  children  unclean,  but 
now  are  they  holy."  If  the  Dippers  do  not  under- 
stand how  to  reconcile  such  simple  statements  of  the 
7* 


78  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

Bible  as  these,  thej  will  find  it  a  healthful  exercise 
to  study  it  a  little,  and  then  they  will  cease  to  com- 
plain of  our  contradicting  ourselves  in  such  state- 
ments. But  our  Doctor  may  go  back  to  his  own 
third  chapter  and  read  his  own  dissertation  on  the 
words  of  Paul,  calling  the  children  of  believers 
"  holy,"  till  he  can  understand  how  such  a  one  can  be 
holy  and  still  depraved. 

In  his  own  words,  just  quoted,  he  declares  that 
the  infants  of  believers  are  as  deeply  depraved  as 
others,  and  in  his  third  chapter  he  admits  Paul  very 
properly  calls  them  lioly^  and  now  he  comes  to  us 
with  the  annunciation,  that  this  is  contradictory, — 
"  The  one  falsifies  the  other."  He  must  be  very  for- 
getful. Pity  that  one  whose  memory  is  so  bad  as  to 
forget  his  own  words  so  soon,  should  undertake  to 
enlighten  the  world  by  book-making. 

As  to  the  complaint  that  corrupt  and  depraved 
infants  are  members  of  the  church,  I  remark,  that 
there  is  surely  no  evidence  that  they  possess  more 
corruption  or  depravity  than  many  who  are  dipped 
into  the  church  of  Immersionists.  If  one  can  be 
dipped  into  the  church  and  still  possess  so  much 
depravity  and  darkness,  as  to  declare  that  men  and 
infants  cannot  be  holy,  while  subjects  of  a  sinful 
nature,  I  cannot  see  why  innocent  babes  may  not  be 
baptized  into  the  visible  kingdom  of  our  Lord.  As 
to  their  being  born  in  the  church,  it  is  obvious  to 
common  sense,  that  if  the  parents  are  members  of 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HO^TELL.  79 

the  churcli  at  the  birth  of  the.  children,  the  children 
must  be  born  in  the  church.  This  is  a  simple,  un- 
deniable fact.  It  can  no  more  be  controverted 
than  the  fact,  that  all  children  are  born  members  of 
that  community  of  which  their  parents  are  members. 
To  talk  of  the  children  of  church  members  being 
born  out  of  the  church,  is  as  absurd  as  to  say  that 
the  children  of  Americans  can  be  born  Europeans, 
or  Asiatics.  But  the  fact  of  their  being  born  within 
the  visible  church,  no  more  argues  that  they  are 
born  of  the  spirit,  than  the  fact  of  immersion  and 
membership  with  Dippers  proves  any  one  to  be 
spiritually  regenerated. 

Our  author  proceeds  next  to  notice  "  two  other 
collateral  and  disastrous  consequences "  of  infant 
baptism.  "  The  former  is  the  absurdity^  that  religion 
is  hereditary ;  and  the  latter,  that  children  of  be- 
lievers have  no  need  of  the  regenerating  influences 
of  the  spirit  of  God  !" 

He  argues  that  if  the  children  of  believers  are 
heirs  of  spiritual  blessings  by  virtue  of  their  birth, 
religion  must  be  conveyed  by  regular  generation,  and 
of  course  there  can  be  no  need  of  regeneration  by  the 
divine  spirit.  The  reasoning  would  be  exactly  the 
same,  if  some  Asiatic  should  say,  "  Inasmuch  as 
Americans  believe,  that  by  virtue  of  their  birth  their 
children  are  heirs  to  all  the  blessings  of  American 
freemen,  there  can  be  no  need  for  deeds  of  convey- 
ance and  for  teachers  in  America ;  because  property 


80  EVILS    OF   DR.    HOWELL. 

and  education,  with  all  tlieir  attendant  blessings, 
are  conveyed  by  natural  generation  !" 

God  save  the  people  from  the  policy  and  the  logic 
of  Dippers !  All  men  know  that  by  bii'th  children 
become  heirs  to  all  the  possessions  of  their  parents ; 
but  who  else  than  a  Dipper  would  ever  think  of  con- 
veying a  house,  a  tract  of  land,  or  even  an  education, 
to  a  child  by  natural  generation  ?  !  ! 

As  property  is  conveyed  to  the  heir  by  title-deeds, 
and  education,  with  its  train  of  blessings,  is  conveyed 
by  long,*patient  and  laborious  teaching,  and  God's 
blessing;  so  the  inheritance  of  heaven,  the  comforts 
of  religion,  the  faith  of  the  gospel,  the  renewal  of  the 
heart,  and  all  that  appertains  to  the  salvation  of  the 
soul,  are  conveyed  to  the  heirs  of  glory  by  means  of 
direct  instruction,  and  especially  by  pious  example 
in  reading  the  holy  Scriptures,  in  daily  thanksgiving, 
praise,  confession,  and  prayer  to  God,  and  in  the 
regular  discharge  of  all  the  duties  of  religion  in 
presence  of  the  children,  with  the  addition  of  God's 
blessing  in  all  these  things.  So  religion  forms  no 
exception  to  the  rules  of  common  sense.  The  in- 
heritance is  by  birth,  and  the  conveyance  by  instruc- 
tion, with  God's  blessing.  No  man  can  deny  but  the 
children  of  the  pious  enjoy  great  advantages  in  these 
respects.  God  himself  explains  the  manner  of  con- 
veyance ;  when  speaking  of  Abraham,  he  says,  ''  For 
I  know  him,  that  he  will  command  his  children  and 
his  household  after  him,  and  they  shall  keep  the  way 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  81 

of  the  Lord,  to  do  justice  and  judgment,  that  the 
Lord  may  bring  upon  Abraham  that  ivhich  he  hath 
spoken  of  him.^^ — Gen.  18:  19.  Here  it  is  plain 
that  while  birth  makes  the  children  heirs,  instruction 
with  the  divine  blessing  makes  the  conveyance  ;  and 
there  is  not  a  word  about  conveying  God's  blessing 
by  "  natural  generation^"  as  the  Dippers  improperly 
allege- 
When  men  professing  Christianity,  under  guise  of 
searching  for  truth,  employ  all  their  ingenuity  to  per- 
vert and  ridicule  doctrines  they  cannot  confute,  men 
of  the  world  who  scorn  such  trickery,  become  scep- 
tical, and  Christ  bleeds  at  every  pore  with  sorrows  ex- 
ceeding death  itself.  Dr.  Howell  knows  very  well 
that  no  Pedo-baptist  ever  advocated  the  doctrine  that 
religion  is  conveyed  by  "  natural  generation,"  and  if 
he  can  review  this  chapter  of  his  book  without  com- 
punction and  shame,  it  must  stand  as  a  melancholy 
demonstration  of  the  alarming  hardness  of  heart 
which  he  has  acquired  by  trifling  with  truth  while 
professing  to  give  a  true  account  of  the  sentiments 
of  others. 

The  next  example  is  in  these  words — "  Pedo-bap- 
tists  allege,  that  the  children  of  the  flesh  of  believ- 
ers, are  the  heirs  of  the  covenant,  and  for  the  very 
reason  that  they  are  the  children  of  the  flesh."  It 
is  difficult  to  conceive  any  excuse  for  sophistry  so 
glaring  as  this.  In  the  first  member  of  the  sentence 
the  children  of  believers  are  represented  as  the  heirs 


82  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

of  the  covenant,  and  in  the  second  memheY  faith  is 
not  only  kej^t  out  of  view,  but  the  reason  of  this 
heirship  is  expressly  referred  to  the  Jlesh.  Nor  can 
he  here  mean  the  literal  flesh.  The  word  is  used 
also  to  denote  the  corrupt  propensities  of  our  nature, 
and  our  author  so  uses  it  here  in  order  to  cast  odium 
on  the  doctrine,  that  the  children  of  believers  are 
heirs  of  the  covenant.  This  is  plain  from  the  fact 
that  he  is  here  discussing  the  relations  of  Ishmael 
and  Isaac  to  the  covenant;  and  it  is  impossible  but 
our  author  knows  that  Isaac  descended  as  literally 
from  the  literal  flesh  of  Abraham  as  did,  Ishmael. 
Then  he  would  make  tlie  child  of  unbridled  lust  au 
equal  heir  with  the  child  of  promise  !  All  this  iu 
the  face  of  known  focts,  not  because  he  believes  it, 
noi  because  he  supposes  we  believe  it ;  but  out  of 
simple  malice,  to  cast  odium,  in  view  of  the  ignorant, 
on  a  subject  which  he  feels  unable  to  confute.  If 
Dippers  desire  to  retain  so  much  of  the  respect  of 
their  opponents  as  will  give  them  any  power  for 
good  over  them,  and  to  convince  the  world  that  they 
love  truths  it  is  time  tliey  were  learning  to  give 
views  of  others  with  candor,  and  to  meet  them  witb 
argument  rather  than  ridicule.  It  will  require  but 
little  study  for  any  man  to  make  the  proper  distinc- 
tions between  birth  and  education,  blood  and  exam- 
ple, an  heir  and  a  possessor,  a  literal  birth  within 
the  visible  church  and  regeneration  by  the  Spirit,  the 
bastard  of  a  slave  and  the  child  of  promise  in  wedlock. 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  83 

In  conclusion,  let  me  give  a  short  extract  merely 
as  a  sample  of  the  railing  of  the  author  and  his  com- 
peers :  "  If  the  infant  children  of  believing  parents 
are  '  holy,'  are  '  in  the  covenant  of  grace,'  are  '  born 
in  the  church,'  then,  of  course,  their  nature  is  pure. 
The  work  of  the  Spirit  is  not  necessary  to  cleanse 
their  hearts  and  fit  them  for  a  higher  life. — All  this 
they  are  carefully  taught  from  childhood.  Are  they 
not  likely  to  believe  it  ?  If  they  do,  they  cannot 
also  believe  that  they  have  a  depraved  and  corrupt 
heart.  Thus  infant  baptism  inculcates  a  religion 
that  is  neither  moral  nor  spiritual,  but  merely  phys- 
ical.    It  is  therefore  a  most  revolting  evil. 

In  opposition  to  all  this  bluster,  I  place  the  public 
and  known  morality  and  spiritual  religion  of  Pedo- 
baptists  and  their  children ;  nor  do  I  at  all  fear  the 
result  of  a  comparison  in  these  respects  with  Dippers 
and  their  children. 


CHAPTEE  Y. 

"  INFANT  BAPTISM  IS  AN  EVIL  ;  BECAUSE  THE  DOCTRINES  UPON 
WHICH  IT  RESTS  CONTRADICT  THE  GREAT  FUNDAMENTAL 
PRINCIPLE  OF  JUSTIFICATION  BY  FAITH," 

Infant  baptism  plainly  rests  on  the  representa- 
tive character  of  the  believing  parent :  and  I  was 
curious,  on  reading  the  caption  of  this  chapter,  to  see 
what  stratagem  would  be  employed  by  our  wily  Dip- 
per to  exhibit  even  the  appearance  of  a  contradiction 
between  the  representative  character  of  parents  and 
the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith.  But  not  a  word 
upon  that  point  is  to  be  found  in  all  the  chapter ! 
What,  then,  the  reader  will  ask,  is  the  course  of  the 
argument?  Well,  in  the  first  place  we  have  a  toler- 
ably correct  statement  of  the  doctrine  of  justification 
by  faith.  Then  follow  some  bold  assertions  that 
infant  baptism  supplanted  the  doctrine  of  justifica- 
tion by  faith,  and  introduced  all  the  corruptions  of 
popery ;  but  not  a  shred  of  proof  is  oflfered.  Then 
Luther's  experience  is  detailed  with  a  short  account 
of  the  reformation  from  popery.     In  the  next  place 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  85 

our  author  quotes  largely  from  "  the  creeds  of  the 
Protestant  sects,"  in  order  to  prove  that  they  all  be- 
lieve the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith.  After- 
wards he  quotes  from  the  same  creeds  to  prove  that 
they  all  believe  that  baptism  regenerates  and  justi- 
fies infants,  and  then  concludes  as  might  be  expected. 

To  set  him  right  here  it  will  be  necessary  to  notice 
but  a  few  examples  of  the  many  that  tend  to  the  same 
point. 

In  speaking  of  the  "formularies"  of  "all  the 
Protestant  sects,"  he  says  :  "  Infant  baptism  finds  a 
place  there,  sustained  by  all  the  doctrines  with  which 
popery  had  surrounded  it."  Does  Dr.  Howell  be- 
lieve that  Protestants  baptize  infants  with  the  sign 
of  the  cross,  salt,  priest's  spittle  ?  &c.  If  he  does 
believe  it,  he  is  too  ignorant  to  deserve  credit.  If 
he  does  not  believe  it,  he  alone  has  the  right  to  ex- 
plain why  he  uses  the  words  "  sustained  by  all  the 
doctrines  with  which  popery  has  surrounded  it." 

But  he  proceeds,  with  many  protestations  of  can- 
dor, to  give  his  readers  a  true  statement  of  the  doc- 
trines of  "  the  Protestant  sects,"  by  veracious  ex- 
tracts from  their  several  creeds,  showing  that  they 
all  believe  that  baptism  both  regenerates  and  pro- 
cures pardon  to  both  adults  and  infants. 

The  Westminster  Confession   of  Faith  says,  that 

baptism  is  "  a  sign  and  seal  of  the  covenant  of  grace, 

of  remission  of  sins,  and  of  his  giving  up  unto  God 

through   Jesus   Christ  to  walk  in  newness  of  life. 

8 


86  EVILS    OF   DR.    HOWELL. 

By  the  right  use  of  this  ordinance  the  grace  prom- ' 
ised  is  not  only  offered,  but  really  exhibited  and  con- 
ferred." 

In  a  note  to  the  word  "  exhibited,"  the  Doctor 
says,  "  Used  in  the  technical  sense  of  the  Latin  ex- 
hibere^  to  apply  or  convey." 

On  this  note  I  would  remark — 1.  The  Latin  ex- 
hibere  has  no  such  meaning,  technical  or  otherwise, 
as  any  one  may  see  for  himself  by  consulting  a  Latin 
dictionary.  It  means  to  shoiv^  to  represent^  &c.,  as 
does  its  English  derivative.  2.  It  is  a  scandalous 
piece  of  indecency  to  attempt  thus  to  deceive  the 
confiding  illiterate  of  his  own  party.  3.  Such  con- 
duct is  as  wicked  as  it  is  dishonorable.  4.  There 
are  several  convincing  proofs  that  the  author  is 
aware  of  all  these  facts. 

As  to  the  quotation  from  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession of  Faith,  it  is  only  necessary  to  call  the  at- 
tention of  the  reader  to  three  observations  : 

1.  If  the  declaration  that  baptism  is  a  sign  of 
remission  of  sins,  &c.,  proves  that  those  who  adopt 
it  believe  that  baptism  procures  pardon  of  sin,  then, 
on  precisely  the  same  principle,  those  who  believe 
that  dipping  is  a  sign  of  the  death,  burial,  and  res- 
urrection of  Jesus  Christ,  must  believe  that  dipping 
kills,  buries,  and  makes  alive.  This  view  gives  to 
dipping  more  of  the  prerogatives  of  God  than  those 
ascribed  to  baptism,  even  by  our  censorious  author. 
If  there  be  no  difference  between  being  the  sign  of 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  87 

a  thiDg  and  effecting  that  thing,  then  truly  to  say 
that  baptism  is  "  the  sign  of  remission  of  sins,"  and 
of  "  his  giving  up  unto  God  through  Jesus  Christ  to 
walk  in  newness  of  life,"  must  be  the  same  as  to  say 
that  baptism  renews  our  sinful  nature  and  justifies 
our  souls  from  all  sin.  Then  the  5?o72-board  at  the 
forks  of  the  road  is  the  road  itself,  and  we  may 
travel  hundreds  of  miles  on  that  short  sign ;  and 
red  clouds  in  the  morning  are  storms  of  wind  and 
rain,  while  red  clouds  in  the  evening  are  calm  and 
beautiful  sunshine  !  Of  course,  when  dipping  is  a 
sign  of  death,  it  kills  the  old  man  of  sin  ;  and  when 
it  is  a  sign  of  the  resurrection,  it  renews  the  spirit 
unto  life  eternal,  and  when  it  refers  to  Christ  in  death 
or  life,  it  is  Christ;  and  this  accounts  for  the  wor- 
ship paid  to  it  by  some  of  its  devotees. 

2.  Our  opponents  seem  to  feel  particular  disiike 
to  the  teaching  of  the  Westminster  Assembly,  when 
they  say,  "  By  the  right  use  of  this  ordinance  the 
grace  promised  is  not  only  offered,  but  really  exhib- 
ited and  conferred." 

But  if  the  grace  promised  and  ofi"ered  in  baptism 
be  not  "  exhibited"  (represented,  shown,)  and  "  con- 
ferred" upon  the  recipient  "  by  the  right  use  of  this 
ordinance,"  it  will  certainly  be  hard  to  show  when 
such  grace  will  be  bestowed.  If  the  promised  grace 
does  not  come  in  the  right  u^e  of  baptism,  it  must 
in  the  wrong  use  of  it,  or  never.  Nor  can  I  see 
what  all  this  quibbling  means,  unless  the  Dippers 


88  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

intend  to  say,  that  the  grace  promised  in  baptism  is 
conferred  only  on  those  who  neglect  it  altogether,  or 
on  those  who  so  misuse  the  ordinance  as  to  substitute 
dipping  for  it,  and  that  with  a  view  of  killing  the 
flesh  and  raising  the  spirit  to  life.  As  this  view 
would  expel  from  the  scheme  of  salvation  both  the 
atonement  of  Christ  and  the  renewing  of  the  spirit, 
it  proposes  emphatically  a  wrong  use  of  the  ordi- 
nance ;  and  if  the  blessing  is  not  to  be  attained  "  by 
the  right  use  of  this  ordinance,"  it  must  come  by 
some  such  ivrong  use,  or  by  entire  neglect  of  it. 

If  such  be  not  the  meaning  of  the  Dippers  in  com- 
plaining of  the  right  use  of  baptism,  it  belongs  to 
themselves  to  state  definitely  what  they  do  mean. 

3.  But  the  sly  deceit  of  our  author  in  attempting 
to  fasten  on  the  Westminster  Assembly  the  odious 
doctrines  of  baptismal  justification  and  baptismal 
regeneration,  appears  in  glaring  colors,  if  we  turn  to 
the  28th  chapter  of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  from 
which  he  makes  the  quotations  under  consideration. 
Between  the  two  quotations  made  by  him,  stand 
these  words  :  "  Although  it  be  a  great  sin  to  contemn 
or  neglect  this  ordinance,  yet  grace  and  salvation  are 
not  so  inseparably  annexed  to  it,  as  that  no  person 
can  be  regenerated  or  saved  without  it,  or  that  all 
that  are  baptized,  are  undoubtedly  regenerated." 
One  who,  by  garbling  quotations  and  purposely  sup- 
pressing the  words  of  a  book  can  attempt,  before  the 
public,  to  falsify  its  teaching  for  the  purpose  of  in- 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  89 

juring  others  rather  than  to  benefit  himself,  may 
serve  the  interests  of  a  party,  and  be  sustained  by 
it ;  but  the  impartial  tribunal  of  the  God  of  truth 
will  be  swayed  by  no  such  influence.  The  author 
should  solemnly  pause  to  inquire  how  far  this  con- 
duct agrees  with  the  ninth  commandment. 

In  the  quotations  of  our  author  from  the  "  Thirty- 
nine  Articles,"  and  from  the  "  Methodist  Articles  of 
Religion,"  baptism  is  said  to  be  "  a  sign  of  regener- 
ation," &c.,  and  to  answer  his  allegations  here  would 
be  merely  a  repetition  of  what  has  been  said. 

Yet,  from  the  simple  declaration  that  baptism  is  a 
"  sig)i  of  regeneration,"  our  author  declares  that  all 
the  Protestant  sects  in  their  "  confessions''  teach, 
therefore,  the  justification  of  the  sinner  by  baptism. 
'•  The  child,  therefore,  in  baptism,  is  pardoned  of 
sin,  is  regenerated,  is  adopted,  is  received  into  the 
church,  received  into  the  favor  of  God,  and  is  sav- 
ed," and  he  might  just  as  well  have  continued — 
And  when  you  obtain  the  merchant'' s  sign  over  his 
door,  you  have  got  him,  vAth  his  clerks,  books,  cash, 
goods,  house  and  all.     What  a  grand  conception  ! 

But  our  author  asks — "  Do  I  deal  justly  with  the 
several  sects?"  Yes;  the  proof  ojf  his  justice  is 
found  in  the  fact  that  Moehler,  a  Roman  Catholic, 
said  that  the  Augsburg  Confession  so  expressed  it- 
self on  this  point  as  "  to  enable  Catholics  to  declare 
themselves  tolerably  satisfied  with  it."  Dr.  H. 
knows  very  well  that  few  of  the  Protestants  of  this 
8* 


90  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

country  receive  the  doctrine  of  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession on  this  point.  He  knows  that  they  declare  a 
different  doctrine ;  and  still  he  does  not  scruple  be- 
fore the  intelligence  of  the  world  to  saddle  them 
with  a  doctrine  so  repugnant  to  their  published 
creeds. 

Still  he  acknowledges  himself  that  they  "  continue 
to  protest  that  they  do  not  attribute  to  baptism  any 
justifying  or  saving  power."  But  he  continues : 
"  Do  they  not  ?  I  have  fairly  recited  the  very  wards 
of  their  Confession  of  Faith?''  No,  Doctor,  you 
have  ^'■fairly  recited"  no  such  thing — you  suppressed, 
in  the  midst  of  your  quotation,  the  very  words  that 
deny  the  charges  you  are  making,  and  you  falsified 
the  words  you  quoted  by  telling  the  people  that 
"  exhibit"  means  "  to  apply  or  convey'' ! ! !  and  by 
saying  that  the  words  "  baptism  is  a  sign  of  regener- 
ation," &c.,  mean  that  baptism  regenerates,  justifies, 
&c.  Fie  !  fie  !  upon  you  for  it ;  and  by  the  way  of 
showing  "  the  sects"  what  sort  of  man  you  are,  I 
will  close  the  review  of  this  chapter  with  a  few  of 
your  amiable  words.  "  But  Presbyterians,  Congre- 
gationalists,  and  Methodists,  do  not  surely  believe 
these  baptismal  doctrines  !  Many  of  them,  I  admit, 
earnestly  deny  it.  Gladly  would  we  credit  their  dis- 
avowals. They  deny  that  they  believe  these  doc- 
trines, and  yet  they  continue  to  publish  them  to  the 
world.  They  deny^  they  affirm^  they  again  deny, 
and  again  affirm.     The  same  contradictions  which  so 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  91 

strikingly  mark  their  Confessions  and  Catechisms, 
we  find  pervading  all  their  teachings  and  practice ;" 
and  thus  you  go  tottering  along  for  four  pages  of 
simple  railing,  frequently  approaching  to  buffoonery, 
and  sometimes  to  scurrility.  I  am  sincerely  ashamed 
to  see  a  professing  Christian  behave  thus  before  the 
world. 


CHAPTER  YI. 

"  INFANT  BAPTISM  IS  AN  EVIL  ;    BECAUSE  IT  IS  IN  DIRECT  CONFLICT 
WITH  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  REGENERATION  BY  THE  HOLT  SPIRIT." 

In  tins  chapter  we  have  little  else  than  a  repeti- 
tion of  the  same  matter  reviewed  in  the  last.  Here 
the  Dippers  are  informed  that  their  "  brethren  of 
all  the  Protestant  denominations  teach  that  tve  are 
regenerated  by  the  Sjoirit  of  God^  and  they  also  teach 
that  ive  are  regenerated  by  bajotism  /" — Baptism 
and  regeneration  are  not  now  esteemed  by  them 
as  separate  and  distinct  things,  but  are  declared  es- 
sentially identical.  This  statement  is  not  hazarded 
carelessly.  It  is  made  after  mature  thought  and  full 
investigation.  I  am  aware  it  is  not  a  light  imputa- 
tion. I  shall  therefore  sustain  it  by  the  "  amplest 
evidence  ;"  and  where  now  is  the  "  amplest  evidence" 
"  in  proof  of  so  grave  a  proposition"  ?  Wh}- — j5rst. 
The  Augsburg  Confession  says  that  "  sin  causes 
eternal  death  to  those  who  are  not  born  again  by 
baptism  and  the  Holy  Spirit."  Very  well  Does 
that  prove  that  we  are  regenerated  in  the  same  sense 


EVILS    OF   DR.    HOWELt.  93 

by  baptism  and  the  Holy  Spirit?  Our  Lord  says, 
"  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit, 
he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God."  Does 
Jesus,  then,  teach  regeneration  by  baptism  and  the 
Holy  Spirit  ?  I  think  not ;  nor  do  I  think  the 
words  cited  from  the  Augsburg  Confession  contain 
any  sach  idea.  If  a  man  be  born  of  water,  he  cer- 
tainly is  born  again  ;  though  not  from  above.  If 
one  be  born  of  the  Spirit,  he  also  is  born  again,  and 
born  from  above.  Regeneration  is  a  word  used  by 
Christians  to  denote  the  new  birth  by  the  grace  of 
God.  To  confound  that  with  the  birth  by  water, 
evinces  great  ignorance,  or  displays  the  small  arts  of 
the  sophist  and  pettifogger.  The  latter  is  true  in 
this  case.  The  very  same  low  sophistry  would  con- 
vict the  Divine  Master  of  the  same  error  charged  on 
his  humble  followers.  And  this  is  the  kind  of  "  am- 
plest evidence"  which  a  grave  D.  D.  brings  "  in  proof 
of  so  grave  a  proposition"  ! 

2.  "  The  Thirty-nine  Articles  embrace  in  sub- 
stance the  declarations  of  the  Augsburg  Confession," 
and  add,  "  There  is  no  condemnation  to  them  that 
believe  and  are  baptized."  And  does  our  grave 
Doctor  think  that  these  words  contain  the  doctrine 
of  baptismal  regeneration  ?  Does  not  the  Saviour 
himself  say,  "  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall 
be  saved"  ?  Does  He  teach  baptismal  regeneration  ? 
Reader,  these  words  constitute  the  whole  proof 
offered  from  the    Thirty-nine    Articles.     It  would 


94  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

seem  that  the  Dippers  believe  that  there  is  con- 
demnation to  them  that  believe  and  are  baptized. 
What  do  they  mean  in  circulating  this  book?  Do 
they  mean  to  say  ih^X  faith  and  baptism  are  of  no 
avail  unless  a  man  be  dipped  ?  I  can  make  nothing 
else  out  of  this  language. 

3.  "  The  Methodist  Articles  of  Religion  assert 
that  baptism  is  a  sign  of  regeneration,  or  the  new 
birth."  This  is  all  of  "  the  amplest  evidence  in 
proof  of  so  grave  a  proposition"  which  is  adduced 
against  the  Methodists ;  and  the  quotation  of  such 

words   in   proof  of  that   point  "is  a  sign  qV 

well,  it  is  of  no  use — the  Doctor  will  take  privileges 
— and — and — so  he  gets  the  present  praise  of  his  own 
party,  he  exercises  little  concern  about  consequences. 

The  quotations  from  the  Westminster  Confession 
are  the  same  that  I  remarked  upon  in  the  previous 
chapter. 

After  his  quotations  from  the  "•  creeds,"  our  author 
takes  a  ramble  among  the  writers  of  Christendom, 
and  finds  some  high-church  men  with  decided  Catho- 
lic tendencies,  who  really  do  maintain  the  doctrine 
of  baptismal  regeneration.  The  language  of  the 
rest  he  generally  perverts  in  the  same  manner  as  he 
perverted  the  creeds.  When  an  author  says  that 
baptism  "  denotes  regeneration" — is  the  "  sign  of 
regneration" — "  seals  the  covenant,"  &c.,  &c.,  he  is 
set  down  as  advocating  regeneration  by  baptism. 
With  the  Dippers,  to  denote  means  to  do,  a  sign  is 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  95 

the  thing  itself,  a  seal  is  the  same  thing  exactly  as 
the  obligation  to  which  it  is  appended ;  and  to  ex- 
hibit means  to  ajoply  or  convey.  If  God  confers  a 
blessing  in  connection  with  the  right  use  of  baptism, 
that  means,  with  them,  that  Grod  has  nothing  to  do 
with  it,  but  that  baptism  by  itself  confers  that  bless- 
ing. These  are  only  a  few  examples  of  the  fairness 
of  Dippers  towards  the  friends  and  advocates  of 
Scriptural  baptism. 

But  I  must  give  the  reader  another  extract  in  the 
words  of  the  author.  It  is  this  :  "  I  have  myself 
often  heard  them  assure  these  same  baptized  children 
when  grown  up,  who  had  been  regenerated  in  their  in- 
fancy, that  they  must  yet  be  regenerated,  or  they  could 
not  be  saved  !  The  attitude  in  which  they  are  thus 
placed  is  most  perplexing  and  pitiable.  They  sol- 
emnly declare  to  the  world  that  they  do  not  believe 
the  very  dogmas,  that  in  their  books  they  solemnly 
declare  they  do  believe  !  They  repudiate  them,  and 
adhere  to  them.  These  are  the  teachings  of  the 
Confessions — the  Bohemian,  the  Saxon,  and  all  the 
others.  Their  lessons  cannot  readily  be  mistaken. 
The  fact  is  now  placed  beyond  a  question,  that 
whatever  they  mxiy  avow,  or  maintain  at  other  times ^ 
whenever  this  ordinance  is  in  question,  they  all  con- 
nect infant  baptism  and  regeneration?'' 

Now,  reader,  remember  that  these  charges  are 
made  deliberately,  after  full  investigation,  and  I 
have  shown  you  all  along  the  full  results  of  this  in- 


yb  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

vestigation  !  You  -will  also  decide  in  the  premisea 
with  what  sincerity  the  author  applies  the  words 
Christian  brethren^  to  those  against  whom  he  prefers 
charges  of  such  monstrous  heresies,  and  such  deceit 
in  denying  and  avoiving  these  heresies  !  He  comes 
up  with  the  sweet  word  brother  on  his  lips,  only  that 
he  may  minister  his  blow  with  more  certainty.  I 
wish  every  reader  to  procure  the  book,  and  read  it 
for  himself ;  for  in  the  short  space  of  a  review  I  can 
give  but  a  small  idea  of  the  amount  of  obloquy  thrown 
on  those  who  delight,  in  God's  own  appointed  way,  to 
acknowledge  that  their  children  belong  to  his  kingdom. 
If  in  the  division  of  "  the  great  city"  into  "  three 
parts," — Russia,  France,  and  England — we  have 
visible  demonstration  that  the  seventh  angel  has 
poured  his  "  vial  into  the  air,"  it  is  a  not  less  strik- 
ing fact  that  this  irritating  book  is,  as  it  were,  sown 
broadcast  over  the  land.  There  is  in  it  nothing  to 
convince — nothing  even  to  puzzle  one,  who  is  only 
moderately  acquainted  with  the  Scriptures.  To 
convince  his  opponents  is  plainly  no  part  of  his  de- 
sign. The  object  before  him  appears  on  the  very 
surface  of  the  work.  It  is  to  rouse  the  hatred  of 
his  own  church  against  all  others,  and  to  excite  the 
prejudices  of  the  world,  so  as  to  throw  them  beyond 
all  religious  influence  from  Pedo-baptists.  He  seems 
not  to  have  conceived  the  idea,  that  the  world  is 
large  enough  to  give  scope  and  employment  to  the 
most  enlarged  zeal  of  Dippers,  without  offering  any 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  97 

liinderancG  to  the  good  which  others  might  do.  No 
sig7i  is  more  infallible  than  that  the  man  who  mis- 
represents his  opponents,  is  conscious  of  his  utter 
inability  to  meet  them. 

Finally,  the  Dippers  suppose  that  all  our  errors, 
alleged  or  imaginary,  are  the  fruit  of  the  misconcep- 
tion of  the  intention  of  baptism.  They  say,  '•  The 
Lord's  Supper  being  commemorative  of  the  suffer- 
ings and  death  of  Christ,  they  thought  that  sufficient 
for  Him,  and  so  removed  baptism  from  its  legal 
place,  as  a  concurring  witness,  and  not  only  without 
authority,  but  expressly  against  authority,  made  it 
a  witness,  and  significant  of  regeneration.  Here  the 
perversion  commenced.  The  work  of  deterioration 
then  rapidly  progressed.  With  them  baptism  was 
now  regeneration,  and  regeneration  was  baptism." 

Now,  while  more  than  nine-tenths  of  the  Pedo- 
baptists  utterly  deny  the  charge  of  holding  baptism 
and  regeneration  as  the  same  thing,  they  do  believe, 
as  stated,  that  baptism  is  a  sign  and  symbol,  and 
figure,  of  regeneration,  in  the  proper  sense  of  these 
terms ;  and  as  we  are  here  charged  with  doing  this 
"  without  authority,"  we  deem  it  proper  to  show  our 
authority,  such  as  it  is.  Then  we  set  down  the 
proposition  to  be  sustained  in  these  words  :  TJie  gift 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  reneiv,  purify  and  sanctify  the 
hearty  is  symbolized  by  baptism  ivith  water. 

The  following  is  some  of  the  authority  on  which 
we  rely. 

9 


98 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 


Matt.  3  :  11,  "  I  indeed  baptize  3^011  with  water; 
but  He  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost." 
John,  then,  began  this  shocking  corruption  of  the 
ordinance.  He  did  not  dij)  into  ivater^  but  baptized 
with  it ;  and  then  stated  the  contrast  between  his 
baptism  and  Clirist's,  to  be  not  in  the  design,  but  in 
the  substance  employed, — Christ  would  baptize  with 
the  Holy  Ghost,  not  to  represent  his  own  death,  but 
the  power  of  his  life,  transferred  into  the  renewed 
heart.  This  is  no  dipping  authority,  to  be  sure ; 
but  nothing  the  worse  for  that.  See,  also,  Mark,  1  : 
8;  Luke,  3:   16;  John,  1:  26. 

Ver.  14.  "I  have  need  to  be  baptized  of  Thee, 
and  comest  thou  to  me  ?"  If  John  had  understood 
baptism  as  ^r^ferring  to  the  death  of  Christ,  what 
idea  would  he  have  had  in  refusing  to  symbolize 
that  death  at  the  request  of  the  Saviour  ?  It  is  as 
plain  as  daylight,  that  John  viewed  Jesus  as*  more 
pure  and  holy  than  himself,  and  therefore  desired 
to  be  cleansed  and  purified  more  thoroughly  by  Him. 

Acts,  1:5.  "  For  John  truly  baptized  with 
water ;  but  ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost, 
not  many  days  hence,"  Here  again  the  baptism  of 
water  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost  are  placed  as  correl- 
ates, but  not  a  word  of  allusion  is  made  to  the 
Saviour's  death  as  the  thing  symbolized  by  either. 
Indeed,  the  living  Spirit  imparting  divine  life  to 
man  would  be  a  very  unsuitable  emblem  ht  death. 

Think  !  just  think,  of  the  quickening  Spirit  of 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  99 

God  as  the  emblem  of  a  grave  in  whicli  dead  men  are 
to  be  buried !  How  revolting  are  the  associations 
of  immersion  !  But  bedewing  baptism  is  the  ap- 
propriate and  beautiful  emblem  of  the  descending 
Spirit  imparting  new  life  to  men,  as  the  dews  to 
vegetation.  Nature  and  grace  having  the  same 
Author,  are  much  alike. 

Acts,  11  :  15,  16.  "  As  I  began  to  speak,  the 
Holy  Ghost  fell  on  them  as  on  us  at  the  beginning, — 
then  remembered  I  the  word  of  the  Lord,  how  that 
he  said,  John  indeed  baptized  with  water ;  but  ye 
shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost."  Here 
baptism  and  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit  appear  to 
be  so  intimately  associated  in  the  mind  of  the  apostle 
Peter,  that  the  one  suggests  the  other  ;  and  yet  Dr. 
H.  deems  it  a  great  corruption  of  the  ordinance  to 
teach  that  it  refers  to  the  purifying  agency  of  God's 
descending  Spirit !  How  immersion  corrupts  the 
imagination  ! 

Titus,  3:5.  "  According  to  his  mercy  he  saved 
us  by  the  washing  of  regeneration  and  renewing  of 
the  Holy  Ghost."  Here  the  reader  can  see  for  him- 
self that  both  regeneration  and  the  renewing  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  are  expressly  called  ivashing — baptism. 
Dr.  H.,  then,  does  great  injustice  to  his  own  standing 
as  a  scholar  and  theologian,  when  he  hazards  the  as- 
sertion that  Pedo-baptists  have  corrupted  the  ordi- 
nance of  Christian  baptism  by  teaching  that  it  refers 
to  regeneration  and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 


100  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

I  greatly  regret  his  recklessness,  and  hope  these 
kind  strictures  on  his  work  may  cause  him  to  see  and 
retract  his  errors.  Faithfulness  to  hini,  frequently 
requires  a  measure  of  rebuke  from  me,  which  no- 
thing but  an  earnest  desire  for  his  good  could  cause 
me  to  administer.  When  he  does  violence  to  the 
plainest  language  of  his  opponents ;  puts  sentiments 
into  the  mouths  of  the  dead,  which  would  fill  them 
with  horror,  and  calumniates  the  living — ^justice  to 
society,  as  well  as  his  own  good,  requires  that  his 
sectarianism  and  party  zeal  be  exposed.  Lovers  of 
pure  truth  will  be  careful  to  give  correct  statements 
of  the  points  they  oppose,  and  never  will  ascribe  to 
opponents  sentiments  which  they  disclaim.  This  is 
as  unmanly  as  it  is  unchristian.  When  will  partisans 
learn  this  truth  ? 


CHAPTEK   YII. 

"  INFAXT  BAPTISM  IS  AN  EVIL  ;  BECAUSE  IT  DESPOILS  THE  CHTTECH 
OF  THOSE  PECULIAR  QUALITIES  WHICH  ARE  ESSENTIAL  TO  THE 
CHURCH  OF  CHRIST." 

In  this  chapter  we  have  a  strange  medley  of 
sublime  truth  and  childish  mistakes,  with  here  and 
there  a  dash  of  perversion  sujfficient  to  fill  the  dullest 
stupor  with  astonishment.  One,  on  reading  these 
perversions  of  the  language  of  others,  finds  a  difl&culty 
in  deciding  whether  to  refer  them  to  prejudice,  or  a 
disposition  to  place  his  opponents  in  an  unfavorable 
light,  No  one  who  will  read  three  pages  of  the 
work  can  for  a  moment  admit  that  our  author  cannot 
understand  plain  English,  and  still  no  man  could  be 
more  unfortunate  than  he  in  setting  forth  the  real 
ideas  of  his  opponents.  He  is  less  disposed  to  allow 
them  the  most  favorable  construction  of  their  words 
than  any  controversialist  we  remember  to  have  read. 
It  would  seem  that  he  has  no  wish  to  convince  them, 
but  merely  to  enrage  his  own  party  against  them. 
Sometimes,  also,  one  is  tempted  to  believe,  that  his 
9* 


102  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

perversions  are  intended  to  provoke  bis  opponents 
to  the  use  of  such  language  as  will  prejudice  their 
own  cause.  Be  this  as  it  may,  we  hope  to  be  able 
to  rebuke  him  with  a  measure  of  the  sharpness  he 
deserves,  without  offending  against  decency,  or  Chris- 
tian charity. 

This  chapter  is  especially  characterized  by  great 
looseness  of  style.  Take  one  example — "  The  true 
visible  church  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  upon  earth 
is  necessarily  spiritual  and  pure.  If  deprived  of 
these  qualities,  it  is  evidently  no  longer  his  church." 
It  would  seem,  then,  that  if  "  the  true  visible  church 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  upoii  the  eartW-^  be  not 
both  "  spiritual  and  pure,"  it  cannot  be  "  the  true 
spiritual  church  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  upon  the 
earth^''  upon  the  sea,  or  in  the  air.  And  if  not  the 
true  spiritual  church  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  then 
from  the  language  before  us,  it  must  be  his  false 
spiritual  church.  Of  course  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
has  "  upon  the  earth"  two  "  true  visible"  churches — 
one  a  "  true  visible"  false  church,  both  "  spiritual 
and  pure,"  and  the  other  a  "  true  visible"  true 
church,  both  "  spiritual  and  pure."  This  species  of 
boyislp  trifling  occurs  so  often  that  it  amounts  to  a 
positive  fault.  If  it  were  the  blundering  of  one  of 
the  fraternity  who  had  "never  rubbed  his  back 
against\ollege  walls,"  it  might  pass  without  notice ; 
but  it  is  a  shame  for  a  learned  Doctor  of  Divinity 
to  indulge  in  such  reckless  inattention,  of  which  he 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  103 

can  find  no  example  in  the  Bible ;  but  his  book  af- 
fords hundreds. 

But  with  the  title  of  this  chapter  before  us,  we 
naturally  inquire,  How  does  infant  baptism  "  despoil" 
Christ's  church  of  its  essential  features  ?  Dr.  How- 
ell shall  tell — "  The  true  visible  church  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  upon  the  earth  is  necessarily  spiritual 
and  pure.  If  deprived  of  these  qualities,  it  is  no 
longer  his  church.  None  others  can  enter  his  church, 
since  it  is  his  purpose  to  perpetuate  in  his  body 
these  holy  qualities.  We  are  now  prepared  to  in- 
quire into  t/ie  effect  produced  upon  the  character  of 
the  Church  by  infant  baptism.  It  sets  aside  all  the 
laws  of  membership  enacted  by  Christ  for  her  pres- 
ervation and  glory.  It  proceeds  upon  others  of  its 
own  creation  and  substitution.  It  brings  into  the 
body,  not  the  spiritual  and  the  pure  only,  but  also 
all  classes  of  men;  and  it  thus  impresses  upon  it 
such  a  character  as  effectually  destroys  its  claims  to 
be  regarded  as  the  true  visible  church  of  Christ.  It 
is  thenceforth  necessarily  carnal  and  unholy.  It  is 
not  the  church  of  Christ.''^ 

On  these  extracts,  I  offer  the  following  remarks : 
1.  The  Doctor,  in  these  definitions,  describes 
rather  the  church  triumphant  than  the  church  mil- 
itant— what  the  church  ought  to  be,  rather  than 
what  it  really  is.  He  himself  allows,  that  under  the 
phrases,  "  kingdom  of  heaven''  and  ''  kingdom  of 
Godj"  our  Lord  describes  the  visible  church.    When 


104  EVILS    OF   DR.    HOWELL. 

we  turn  to  His  inspired  descriptions,  we  read  that 
"  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  like  unto  a  net,  that  was 
cast  into  the  sea,  and  gathered  of  every  kind."  It 
is  like  "  unto  a  man  which  sowed  good  seed  in  his 
field,  but  while  men  slept,  his  enemy  came  and 
sowed  tares  among  the  wheat" — like  unto  "  ten  vir- 
gins, and  five  of  them  were  wise  and  five  were  fool- 
ish."* Here  the  Saviour  describes  the  visible  church 
as  it  really  is,  and  if  this  description  be  true,  Dr. 
Howell's  is  a  mere  fancy  sketch,  worth  nothing  at 
all.  It  is  mere  fiction.  It  answers  to  nothing  in 
creation  here  below.  It  does  not  suit  his  own  im- 
mersion church.  It  is  impossible  for  the  Doctor 
himself  to  regard  as  "  spiritual  and  pure"  all  who 
have  been  dipped  into  his  church ;  and  if  "  none 
others  can  enter  [Christ's]  church,"  it  is  certain  that 
the  church  of  Immersionists  is  not  Christ's,  because 
many  of  the  sensual  and  impure  have  been  dipped 
into  it,  and  still  remain  in  it.  The  writer  knows 
some  who  were  dipped  into  it  while  drunk.  He  has 
known  their  preachers  to  be  ministering  in  the  pulpit 
with  bottles  of  "  the  good  critter"  in  their  pockets, 
and  the  reverend  pastors  themselves  boasting  in  a 
staggering  " liberty"  about  the  altar  of  the  Lord! 
By  his  own  definition,  then,  our  author  excludes  his 
own  denomination  from  all  participation  in  the  king- 
dom of  Christ,  since  the  sensual  and  impure  still 
enter  into  that  sect  also.  They  are  not  "  spiritual 
*  Matt  15  :  24,  25,  4Y,  and  16 :  1,  2. 


EVILS    OF   DR.    HOWELL.  105 

and  pure,"  altliongli  dipped  into  a  *' faction."  or 
"  worldly  corporation,"  calling  itself  "  the  only  body 
of  Christ  upon  earth."  It  cannot  be  the  body  of 
Christ  by  its  own  showing;  for  it  is  printing  and 
circulating  a  book  that  condemns  itself,  and  "  if  it 
condemns  itself,  Grod  is  greater  than  it,  and  will  also 
condemn  it."  It  receives  and  retains  hypocrites  in 
its  communion,  and  calls  them  brethren,  just  because 
they  have  been  immersed,  while  it  excludes  from  the 
name,  communion,  and  all  privileges  of  the  church 
those  whom  it  acknowledfjes  to  be  regenerated  by  the 
Spirit  of  God,  for  no  other  reason  than  simply  be- 
cause they  have  not  been  immersed.  It  puts  a  higher 
estimate  on  an  outward  dash  into  the  water  than  on 
the  pure  inward  graces  of  the  Spirit  of  life  from 
Christ;  for  it  receives  all  the  unregenerate  hypo- 
crites that  submit  to  be  dipped,  while  it  unhes- 
itatingly excludes  the  regenerated  from  all  partici- 
pation in  its  communion. 

Not  one  of  these  charges  is  our  own.  They  are 
all  the  certain  consequences  of  their  own  positions 
and  definitions.  We  feel  far  more  charitable  towards 
them  ;  and  knowing  the  imperfections  of  humanity 
and  the  definitions  of  the  Scripture,  we  have  ever 
been  disposed,  with  all  their  errors,  to  regard  them 
as  a  portion  of  the  visible  church  of  Christ ;  because 
a  large  proportion  of  their  body  give,  as  we  think, 
satisfactory  evidence  that  they  are  born  of  the  Spirit. 
But  let  their  own  doctrine  be  true,  that  the  visible 


106  EVILS    OF   DR.    HOWELL. 

church  consists  entirely  of  the  "  spiritual  and  pure," 
and  that  "  none  others  can  enter"  it,  and  the  Dippers 
henceforth  make  neither  part  nor  parcel  of  that 
glorious  body. 

2.  Another  point  in  the  extract  before  us  is  this. 
"  It  [infant  baptism]  sets  aside  all  the  laws  of  mem- 
bership enacted  by  Christ." 

This  declaration  is  made  on  the  simple  authority 
of  the  Dippers.  But  it  is  directly  opposed  to  the 
authority  of  Christ,  who  solemnly  declares,  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  worldly  wisdom  of  his  disciples,  that 
infants  belong  to  his  kingdom,  and  are  a  part  of  his 
visible  church.  He  says  they  receive  his  kingdom 
in  such  a  manner  as  to  afford  an  instructive  example 
to  adults.  He  invites  them  to  himself,  takes  them 
into  his  arms,  and  blesses  tliem.  How  can  they 
come  to  Christ,  and  still  be  out  of  his  kingdom  ? 
Does  Christ  go  out  of  his  kingdom  to  receive  them  ? 
Does  he  bless  those  who  are  out  of  his  kingdom? 
What  good  will  it  do  for  Christ  to  receive  and  bless 
them,  if  they  are  still  to  be  shut  out  of  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  ?  But  how  can  they  be  received  openly, 
and  acknowledged  as  members  of  his  kingdom,  with- 
out baptism  ?  He  commands  us  to  receive  them  in 
his  name.  Is  there  any  way  to  receive  them  in  his 
name  but  by  baptism  ?  Can  any  one  be  received  in 
his  name  without  baptism  ?  Then  it  is  not  infanl 
baptism,  but  the  Dippers,  that  "set  aside  all  the 
laws  of  membership  enacted  by  Christ." 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL,  107 

3,  Our  extract  further  says:  "  It  [infant  baptism] 
brings  into  the  body,  not  the  spiritual  and  pure  only, 
but  also  all  classes  of  men."  Well,  then,  it  makes 
the  church  answer  exactly  to  the  description  given 
by  her  King,  It  "  is  like  unto  a  net  that  was  cast 
into  the  sea,  and  gathered  of  every  kind,"  and  facts 
testify  that  it  gathers  at  least  as  many  of  the  *'  spirit- 
ual and  pure  "  as  any  of  its  antagonists  and  haters 
can  boast  But  our  author  intends  here  more  thaa 
he  says.  He  further  declares — "  The  doctrine 
taught  by  Pedo-baptists  would  bring  every  child 
upon  earth  into  the  church,"  What  a  calamity  this 
would  be  !  Just  think  of  it  !  All  the  children  of 
earth  put  under  religious  training !  and  not  one  left 
for  the  devil,  or  the  Dippers!  By  solemn  vows 
every  one  is  to  be  trained  to  read  and  study  the 
Bible,  and  to  know  baptism,  but  remains  forever 
ignorant  of  dipping,  immersion,  and  the  like!  But 
still  he  goes  on — '•  It  blots  out  every  vestige  of  the 
church  itself,  by  wholly  destroying  its  visibility! 
No  living  being  would  be  out  of  the  church — [what 
a  pity  !]  The  church  is  the  world,  and  the  world  is 
the  church.  Either  there  is  no  church,  or  no 
world  1"  Then  we  shall  hear  sore  and  bitter  wailing 
among  the  Dippers  about  the  time  that  all  come  to 
"  know  the  Lord,  from  the  least  to  the  greatest," — 
when  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  extending  from  shore 
to  shore,  shall  embrace  all  mankind,  infants  and 
adults.     Oh !   how  their  hearts  will  ache !     That 


108  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

*'  corporation,"  wliich  they  have  misnamed  the 
"  church  of  Christ," — while  all  others  are  called 
"  sects  "  or  "  parties  " — will  have  passed  away  for- 
ever !  All,  from  the  least  to  the  greatest,  will  then 
be  in  the  church !  and  there  will  then,  according  to 
their  wail,  be  "  no  visible  church  on  earth," — fall  of 
impure,  unholy  infants !  "  Every  vestige  of  the 
[dipping]  church  blotted  out !"  Alas  !  alas  !  "  What 
do  we  now  see  ?  The  spirituality  of  the  church  is 
gone  !  The  purity  of  the  church  is  gone  I  The 
msibihty  of  the  church  is  gone  I  The  chitrch  itself 
is  gone  ! — destroyed  by  infant  baptism  !"  Come, 
then,  all  ye  devils  in  hell,  and  all  ye  wicked  of  earth, 
to  swell  these  doleful  lays ;  for  "  as  truly  as  I  live, 
all  the  earth  shall  be  filled  with  the  glory  of  the 
Lord ;"  and  there  will  then  be  no  church,  [of  Dip- 
pers,] because  the  least  one  on  earth  shall  then  be  in 
the  church  1 

But  seriously — Can  Dr.  Howell  persuade  himself 
that  the  visibility  of  the  church  depends  on  its  con- 
trast with  the  world !  Can  the  church  be  seen  no 
longer,  when  everybody  gets  into  it  ?  Tut,  tut ! 
Doctor,  you  surely  have  Ketter  sense  than  that. 
Come,  put  away  your  raillery,  and  go  to  work  like  a 
Christian  philosopher.  The  busy  world  is  not  going 
to  stop  to  listen  to  your  ill-natured  wail  about  the 
babes.  The  dear  little  innocents  will  never  corrupt 
the  church,  nor  destroy  its  visibility.  If  any,  for 
want  of  proper  training,  openly  sell  their  birthright 


EVILS    OF    DR.    KOWELL.  109 

for  sinful  pleasures,  they  instantly  cease  to  be  mem- 
bers of  the  visible  church,  as  did  Esau.  If  afterward 
they  repent,  and  desire  to  be  re-united  to  the  church, 
we  do  not  suppose  that  there  is  any  more  necessity 
to  re-baptize  them  than  there  is  to  re-immerse  those 
who,  in  similar  circumstances,  return  to  the  Dippers. 
Concerning  a  church  practicing  Pedo-baptism,  our 
author  asks,  "  Will  she  not  prefer  a  learned,  or  an 
eloquent,  to  a  converted  ministry  ?"  Ans.  I  am 
not  aware  of  any  such  preference.  The  ministry  of 
Pedo-baptist  churches  have  long  been  as  remarkable 
for  their  jfj/ezf?/  as  for  their  learning ;  nor  am  I  aware 
that  there  is  any  incompatibility  between  learning 
and  piety.  As  far  as  my  knowledge  of  men  extends, 
the  learned  are  not  more  vicious  than  the  ignorant. 
I  know  many  Pedo-baptist  ministers,  who  are  in  every 
way  qualified  to  figure  in  the  learned  professions, 
where  they  might  accumulate  handsome  fortunes, 
that  still  content  themselves  in  poverty  to  preach 
Christ  crucified.  I  never  knew  one  of  them  oppose 
Bible  Societies,  Sunday  Schools,  Missions,  Temper- 
ance, &c.,  and  this  is  a  vast  deal  more  than  any  man 
can  say  of  the  Dipping  preachers.  The  Pedo-bap- 
tists  are  at  least  as  diligent  in  examining  candidates 
for  the  ministry  on  their  experimental  acquaintance 
with  religion,  as  any  other  branch  of  learning.  And 
finally,  Dr.  Howell  speaks  of  Pedo-baptist  ministers 
as  both  "  learned  and  pious,"  and  says  further,  "  The 
great  body  of  them,  [the  Pedo-baptist  ministry,]  and 
10 


110 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 


especially  of  those  connected  -with  the  denominations 
I  have  named,  are  converted  men."  The  testimony 
of  an  enemy  is  good.  These  words  were  forced  from 
bim  by  a  world  of  facts  around  him. 

Then  shame  on  the  breath  that  gave  utterance  to 
the  question,  and  that  gave  forth  so  much  obloquy 
upon  the  "  Protestant  ministry."  Let  his  own  testi- 
mony to  the  purity  of  the  Pedo-baptist  ministry 
stand  to  rebut  the  scandal  he  has  uttered,  saying, 
"  Infant  baptism  blots  out  every  vestige  of  the 
church."  If  it  has  not  blotted  out  the  piety  of  the 
ministry,  one  vestige  still  remains,  or  else  piety  in 
the  ministry  is  no  mark  of  the  true  church.  How 
is  that.  Doctor  ? 

After  representing  infant  baptism  as  corrupting 
and  scandalizing  the  church,  destroying  her  spiritu- 
alit}',  giving  to  her  a  corrupt,  wordly,  ambitious 
ministr}^,  and  blotting  out  "  every  vestige  of  the 
.church  itself,''  our  author  seems  to  have  been  di.s- 
mayed  by  a  host  of  facts  presenting  themselves  on 
every  side  ;  and  in  his  terror  at  their  appearance, 
without  recanting  one  of  the  ugly  ill-natured  charges 
he  had  made,  he  proceeds  forthwith  to  give  four 
reasons  why  our  Pedo-baptist  churches  are  not  cor- 
rupted and  blotted  out ! 

"  The  first  [reason]  is,  the  great  Baptist  principle, 
with  which  they  are  unceasingly  in  contact." 
"  Baptist  principle  !"  Thought  you  said  that  is  not 
English.     None  but  the  learned  know  what  Baptist 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  Ill 

means.  Say  Dijyper  principle^  in  plain  English,  so 
that  all  may  understand  you.  The  "  Baptist  prin- 
ciple "  has  saved  all  from  corruption  !  !  and  what  is 
that  precious  salt,  the  "  Baptist  principle  "  ?  The 
only  thing  in  which  they  differ  from  all  others  is 
dipping  their  members  into  water ;  and  how  that 
has  saved  all  the  other  churches  from  ruin,  no  one 
can  conceive.  We  have  felt  more  of  their  influence 
in  opposing  education,  Sunday  School,  Missionary 
and  Temperance  Societies,  than  in  anything  else; 
but  when,  by  Grod's  help,  we  rolled  these  benevolent 
operations  upon  them,  they  joined  with  the  rest  to 
help  them  forward.  What  infinite  self-conceit  to 
imagine  that  they  have  saved  every  branch  of  the 
church  from  ruin,  because  they  fell  in  with  the  rest, 
when  they  could  not  help  themselves  ! 

"  The  second  of  these  causes  is  the  universal  diffu- 
sion of  the  Bible."  And  who  did  all  this  ?  The 
Dippers  ?  No,  verily.  Thousands  all  over  this  land 
remember  well  their  determined  opposition  to  the 
diffusion  of  the  Bible.  Their  own  church  members 
were  found  destitute  of  the  Scriptures.  Many  of 
them  did  not  possess  the  New  Testament ;  and  when 
supplied  by  our  distributors,  they  burnt  the  hook  of 
God.  Nor  was  this  done  by  one  or  two.  Many 
Dijipers  burnt  the  Bible ;  and  the  reason  they 
assigned  was,  that  it  taught  sprinkling  and  infant 
baptism !  There  are  yet  living  witnesses  all  over 
this    country  to  prove  these  facts.     And  now,  for- 


112  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

sootl),  tlicy  are  the  people  that  have  saved  all  the 
rest  from  corruption,  by  cliflFusiDg  the  Scriptures  ! 
And  this  day,  before  God  and  the  world,  they  are 
the  avowed  opponents  of  our  old  English  Bible,  for 
the  same  reasons  which  induced  them  to  burn  it, 
when  given  to  them  as  a  gratuity  by  Pedo-baptists. 
These  scandals  might  sleep  forever  in  the  grave  of 
oblivion,  if  the  church  of  God  did  not  need  them  for 
her  vindication,  and  the  Dippers  for  the  rebuke  of 
their  pride  and  insolence. 

"  The  cause  [of  keeping  Pedo-baptist  churches 
from  corruption,  and  having  every  vestige  of  the 
church  itself  blotted  out]  is  found  in  the  character 
of  our  Pedo-baptist  ministry.  Their  religion  and 
good  sense  lead  them  to  discard,  except  in  its  forms, 
the  puerilities  of  their  disting-uishing  rites."  And 
these  are  the  same  men  who,  a  little  while  ago,  were 
corrupted  by  infant  baptism,  and  led  to  aspire  more 
after  learning  and  eloquence,  and  fame  and  power, 
than  after  piety!  Our  learned  divine  cannot  re- 
member one  hour  what  he  wrote  the  hour  before. 
One  hour  they  are  corrupting  the  church,  and  the 
next  they  are  purifying  it !  They  are  ''  learned  and 
pious  "  practitioners  of  "puerilities"  too  "absurd 
and  foolish  "  to  be  regarded  by  the  commonest  minds 
as  worthy  of  a  place  anywhere,  except  in  the  darkest 
corruptions  and  the  weakest  superstitions  of  heathen- 
ism !  These  ministers  cannot  possess  all  these 
traits.     One  set  of  them  fiilsifies  the  other ;  and  the 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  113 

Doctor  will  confer  a  favor,  if  iu  the  next  edition  he 
tells  us  in  good  earnest  what  be  wishes  the  people 
to  believe  concerning  Pedo-baptist  ministers.  Are 
they  really  "learned  and  pious,"  possessed  of  '-'re- 
ligion and  good  sense,"  or  are  tbey  the  abettors  of 
"  corruption  and  superstition,"  the  dupes  of  •'  folly  " 
and  weakness — "  puerility  "  ? 

The  fourth  and  last  excuse  (of  the  "  spirituality 
and  purity "  of  the  ''■  corrupt  and  superstitious 
Pedo-baptist  churches)  is  the  revivals  of  religion 
which  have  so  long  and  so  extensively  prevailed  in 
our  country."  But  who,  we  ask,  were  the  agents, 
under  God,  for  the  promotion  of  these  revivals? 
The  world  knows  that  when  they  had  progressed  so 
far  among  Pedo-baptists  that  they  resulted  in  all 
those  stupendous  plans  of  modern  benevolence,  hav- 
ing for  their  object  the  conversion  of  the  world,  the 
Dippers  were  so  sunk  in  antinomianism  and  fatality 
that  they  opposed  them  every  one  with  all  their 
might.  Nor  did  they  yield  to  the  true  spirit  of  ag- 
gressive Christianity  until  it  threatened  their  ex- 
istence. The  gospel  did  conquer  their  ignorance  and 
sluggishness,  be  it  recorded  to  the  praise  of  divine 
grace.  But  it  must  achieve  still  another  victory. 
As  soon  as  their  people  began  to  be  educated,  they 
were  more  and  more  persuaded  that  our  good  Bible 
teaches  sprinkling  and  infant  baptism.  To  rid  them- 
selves of  this  difficulty,  and  preserve  their  existence, 
they  wage  war  against  baptize^  alleging  that  it  is  too 
10* 


114  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

much  like  tlie  Greek  original  hcqjtAzo^  and  they  de- 
cidedly prefer  the  Latin  immerse,  which  is  so  far 
separated  from  the  original  as  to  be  deemed  safe  to 
their  interests.  Presently,  however,  they  find  this 
Latin  leads  too  near  to  Rome.  In  this  extremity  they 
call  for  the  word  <:/?)?,  which  is  so  much  unlike  the 
original  baptize,  that  it  is  deemed  trustworthy  as  a 
vehicle  of  their  distinguishing  idea  of  the  initiatory 
ordinance  of  Christianity. — Instead  of  uniting  with 
others  in  the  glorious  achievements  of  the  world's 
conversion,  they  are  perpetually  retarding  the  work 
by  thrusting  forward  their  antinomianism,  their  op- 
position to  benevolent  efforts,  their  new-translation 
whims,  their  immersion  dogmas — a  man  cannot 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God  unless  he  is  immersed, 
dipped,  or  plunged  !  Thc}^  cannot  be  persuaded  to 
go  on  to  perfection ;  for  they  must  always  be  laying 
again  the  foundation  of  immersion,  dipping,  &c.,  and 
can  never  advance  from  these  useless  dogmas  to 
work  directly  for  the  salvation  of  the  world,  Thus 
they  hinder  the  work  of  revivals  and  the  conversion 
of  the  world,  by  keeping  the  people  agitat<3d  about 
water  ! 

If  our  author  will  employ  a  little  more  industry 
in  collecting  facts,  and  a  little  more  care  in  his  in- 
ductive processes,  he  will  find  that  the  true  reason 
of  the  "  spirituality  and  purity  "  of  the  Pcdo-bap- 
tist  churches  is  found  in  the  fact  that  from  childhood 
they  are  taught  the  holy  Scriptures,  which  are  able 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOV'ELL.  115 

to  make  them  wise  unto  salvation.  He  will  find  that 
in  the  great  revivals  which  have  blessed  our  land, 
nearly  three-fourths  of  those  who  profess  religion 
were  baptized  in  infancy,  while,  perhaps,  hardly  one- 
tenth  of  all  the  children  born  are  baptized.  On  in- 
quiry, he  will  find  that  while  baptized  children,  on 
the  Sabbath,  were  generally  studying  the  Bible,  the 
children  of  Dippers  were  generally  fishiftg,  robbing 
birds'  nests,  orchards,  and  melon  patches,  dragging 
farmers'  plows  from  their  fields  and  hanging  them  in 
trees,  turning  cattle  out  of  the  pastures,  tying  brush 
to  colts'  tails,  and  perpetrating  all  manner  of  small 
villany.  Their  parents  taught  them  that  if  they 
were  of  the  elect,  "  the  Lord  would  bring  them  in, 
in  his  own  good  way  and  time."  They  held  the  same 
doctrine  in  regard  to  the  conversion  of  the  world. 
But  the  power  of  divine  evangelism  found  in  the 
Pedo-baptist  churches,  with  God's  blessing,  producing 
revivals,  and  extending  the  circulation  of  the  Scrip- 
tures in  spite  of  infidels  and  Dippers,  they  have  been 
much  improved  of  late  years.  The  work  now  to  be 
done  for  them  is  by  the  power  of  Bible  truth  to 
drive  them  up  out  of  the  water  upon  dry  land  in  open 
sunshine,  where  they  can  be  warmed  into  holy  zeal 
for  the  salvation  of  the  world.  They  must  be  driven 
from  their  new-translation  mania,  and  taught  to  let 
our  English  Bible  read  baptize — like  the  original — 
and  put  their  Latin  at  the  bottom  of  the  sea,  where 
it  belongs.     Then,  if  they  must  dip  instead  of  bap- 


116  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

tize^  let  tlicm  clip  away ;  but  by  all  means  aid  in 
distributing  the  Word  of  God  according  to  the 
original.  That  will  soon  teach  their  own  children 
the  difference  between  dijj  and  baptize^  and  then  the 
Dippers  will  pass  away,  and  the  churches  will  have 
rest,  and  walking  in  the  fear  of  the  Lord,  and  the 
comfort  of  the  Spirit,  and  the  light  of  the  Bible  will 
be  multiplied.  Let  them  study  these  things,  and  we 
shall  have  no  more  complaints  about  the  corrupting 
influences  of  infant  baptism.  Men  do  not  gather 
grapes  of  thorns,  nor  figs  from  thistles. 

After  charging  all  manner  of  corruption  on  infant 
baptism,  and  then  giving  four  reasons  why  it  does 
not  corrupt,  our  author,  through  twelve  pages  of  his 
work,  goes  on  again  .to  accuse  infant  baptism  of  all 
the  corruptions  of  popery,  and  every  species  of  un- 
godliness in  the  church.  But  we  find  nothing  here 
worthy  of  attention.  He  perverts  every  author  he 
quotes.  Examples :  He  finds  infant  baptism  men- 
tioned by  early  Christian  writers,  and  corruptions  in 
the  church  prevailing  at  the  same  time.  He  as- 
cribes, without  any  authority,  these  corruptions  to 
infant  baptism,  and  then  concludes,  "  See  here  lohat 
afoul  thing  infant  haytism  is  /"  When  it  would 
be  just  as  relevant  for  one  to  look  for  some  mention 
by  the  fathers,  of  the  sanctifying  influences  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  and  a  contemporary  mention  of  some 
flagitious  iniquity, — then  exclaim,  "  How  dreadful 
a  doctrine  is  that  of  the  S^nriVs  injluences  .'"     Or 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  117 

one  might  note  the  fact  of  women's  rights  and  spirit- 
rapping  as  contemporary  with  the  circulation  of  Dr. 
Howell's  book  on  the  imagined  "  evils  of  infant  bap- 
tism," and  then  wisely  exclaim,  "  See  here  tlte  fruits 
of  this  corrupt  and  corrupting  book  .'" 

When  Dr.  Wisner  speaks  of  the  neglect  of  parents 
to  fulfil  the  vows  they  made  at  the  baptism  of  their 
children,  our  author  seizes  upon  it  as  a  proof  of  the 
corrupting  influences  of  infant  baptism  !  All  the 
mischiefs  of  what  used  to  be  called  '*  the  half-way 
covenant "  introduced  by  formalists,  are  also  lugged 
into  the  argument,  and  set  down  as  proofs  of  the 
corrupting  influences  of  infant  baptism.  No  serious 
man  can  read  such  perversions  of  facts  stated  in  the 
plainest  words  of  authors,  such  sophistry  and  shame- 
less deceit,  without  inquiring  what  must  necessarily  be 
the  efi"ect  upon  the  ^oral  character  of  those  who  re- 
ceive them  as  truth. 

If  infant  baptism  has  been  turned  from  its  proper 
purpose  by  some  who  have  espoused  it,  it  is  no  more 
than  has  happened  to  every  doctrine  of  religion. 
The  miraculous  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit  furnished 
occasion  for  pride,  ambition,  and  contention  in  apos- 
tolic churches. — 1  Cor.  14th  chap.  From  the  doc- 
trine of  God's  renewing  grace  has  been  drawn  a  plea 
for  deferring  the  claims  of  repentance.  God's  pro- 
tecting care  of  his  people  has  been  thought  to  favor 
sloth  and  indifierence.  The  purest  revivals  of  re- 
ligion have  furnished    a  cloak  for  fanaticism ;  and 


118  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

Cliristian  liberty,  for  licentiousness.  But  wlo  that 
possesses  the  smallest  particle  of  candor,  or  common 
honesty,  would  think  of  oiSering  such  perversions  as 
arguments  against  these  precious  doctrines  of  the 
Bible  1  If  such  corruptions  by  men  do  not  corrupt 
other  Scriptural  doctrines,  with  what  face  can  they 
be  urged  against  infant  baptism  ?  Is  this  the  best 
Dippers  can  do  ? 

In  the  next  place  we  are  told  that  "  against  this 
deterioration  and  moral  death  in  Pedo-baptist 
churches,  as  such,  there  is  no  possible  remedy — [but] 
do  corruptions,  no  matter  of  what  character,  invade 
Baptist  churches  ?  They  contain  inherently  all  the 
elements  of  restoration."  In  support  of  these  alle- 
gations, it  is  asserted  that  Pedo-baptist  churches  are 
filled  with  immoral,  irreligious  members,  who  will 
always  vote  to  sustain  their  own  corruptions;  but 
the  "  Baptist  churches,"  having  none  but  the  ''  spir- 
itual and  pure  "  in  them,  can  easily  put  out  all  the 
corrupt  and  irreligious  !     This  is  beautiful  ! 

Dr.  H.  ought  to  know  that  the  baptized  infants*in 
Pedo-baptist  churches  have  no  more  to  do  with  gov- 
ernment than  infants  in  a  family.  They  are  sinners 
in  the  church,  as  they  are  in  a  family,  and  are  under 
governors  and  teachers  till  they  come  to  maturity, 
and  give  evidence  of  piety,  when  they  are  admitted 
to  full  fellowship,  as  they  are  to  full  citizenship  at 
the  same  period  of  life.  Until  all  this  is  done,  they 
have  no  more  vote  in  the  church  than  in  tlie  State. 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOAYELL.  119 

We  have  always  much  less  fear  of  their  corrupting 
the  church  than  of  those  who  enter  it  in  after-life 
without  the  advantage  of  early  and  thorough  train- 
ing. Just  so  in  the  State,  we  always  appreliend 
more  danger  from  foreigners,  who  come  in  without  a 
thorough  understanding  of  our  republican  principles, 
than  from  our  own  children,  who  have  been  trained 
from  the  cradle  to  know  the  rights  and  duties  of 
citizens.  But  Dr.  Howell's  argument  goes  to  prove 
that  our  only  danger  in  the  State  is  from  our  native 
citizens,  who  have  been  corrupted  by  education  and 
diligent  training  !  That  we  are  perfectly  safe  under 
the  rule  of  foreigners,  who  know  nothing  of  our 
language,  manners,  customs,  nor  government,  till 
they  come  among  us  (!)  What  does  he  mean  ? 
What  is  he  writing  for  ?  Shame !  fie  !  scandal  on 
the  man,  who  can  totter  along  in  this  manner,  with- 
out thinking  of  the  fatal  stabs  he  is  administering 
to  his  own  cause.  His  church  will  surely  suppress 
the  work,  and  get  a  new  one  written,  or  quit  alto- 
gether. 

This  long  chapter  closes  as  follows  :  *'  With  Bap- 
tists, I  remark  in  conclusion,  are  lodged,  as  you 
must  plainly  see,  the  only  conservative  influences 
now  existing  in  the  universe,  [heaven,  earth  and 
hell.]  It  is  ours,  with  the  blessing  of  God,  to  save 
from  being  quenched,  that  truth  which  is  the  world's 
only  hope,  [and  very  lately  we  turned  more  out  of 
the  church  for  joining  Bible  Societies  and  Bible 


120  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

classes.]  It  is  ours,  also,  to  save  the  Pedo-baptists 
themselves,  of  all  classes,  from  the  consequences  of 
their  own  errors,  [for  the  fools  think  they  can  find  a 
way  to  heaven  without  passing  through  Jordan.]  It 
is  ours  to  spread  the  gospel  throughout  the  round 
earth,  [and  let  the  jlat  one  sink,  and  the  ohiate 
spheroid  go  to  the  Pedo-baptists.]  How  exalted, 
therefore,  how  responsible,  how  far-reaching  is  our 
"mission  .'"  [Yes,  *'  exalted"  to  the  bottom  of  Jordan, 
"  responsible"  for  altering  the  Bible,  and  •'  far- 
reaching"  over  sea  and  land  to  proselyte  other 
Christians  into  the  water.] 


CHAPTEE    YIII. 

"  INFANT    BAPTISM    IS    AN    EVIL  ;    BECAUSE   ITS  PEACTICE  (?)  PER- 
PETUATES THE  SUPERSTITIONS  BY  WHICH  IT  WAS  OPvIGINATED." 

Our  author  sets  out  with  the  annunciation  that 
there  is  no  mention  of  infant  baptism  by  the  earlier 
Christian  fathers  : 

"  Origen,  who  lived  in  the  middle  of  the  third 
century,  was  the  first  to  defend  it." 

Deceitful !  How  many  Christian  writers  flourish- 
ed before  Origen  ?  Be  candid,  be  sober,  be  honest. 
Origen  was  certainly  one  of  the  earlier  Christian 
fathers.  He  was  born  in  A.  D.  185,  and  died  in 
A.  D.  253,  only  three  years  after  the  time  that  our 
author  represents  him  as  in  the  full  career  of  life. 
It  is  plain  that  Dr.  H.  designed  by  the  words  here 
quoted,  to  make  on  the  common  reader's  mind  the 
impression  that  Origen  flourished  full  half  a  century 
later  than  he  did. 

And  "  Origen  was  the  first  to  defend  it"  !  Then 
it  was  certainly  practiced  before  that  period,  and  no 
one  before  had  any  occasion  to  defend  it ;  because 
11 


122  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

no  question  about  it  had  as  yet  been  sprung.  But 
no  one  can  believe  tliat  it  could  have  been  intro- 
duced at  any  time  without  controversy.  If,  then, 
"  Origen  was  the  first  to  defend  it,"  and  there  is  not 
the  remotest  hint  that  it  was  introduced  in  his  day, 
the  evidence  is  pretty  clear  from  Dr.  Howell's  own 
showing,  that  it  must  have  prevailed  in  the  church 
from  time  immemorial.  This  we  showed  to  be  fact 
in  the  first  volume  of  the  True  Baptist. 

We  wish  here  to  repeat  that  our  appeal  is  not  to 
the  church  nor  to  the  fathers,  but  to  the  Bible. 

When  the  proof  of  the  historical  fact  is  complete, 
we  mtist  go  to  the  Word  of  Grod,  the  foundation  of 
authority,  to  ascertain  whether  it  be  riglit,  or  not. 
If  infant  baptism  were  practiced  by  the  earlier 
Christians  without  divine  authority,  their  example 
could  furnish  no  law  for  us.  If  they  neglected  or 
contemned  a  divine  ordinance,  that  would  afford  no 
shield  of  protection  to  us  in  imitating  their  rebellion. 
Still,  be  it  known  that  we  are  not  afraid  of  the  testi- 
mony of  the  fathers,  and  as  our  opponents  are  not 
content  to  remain  on  the  consecrated  ground  of  di- 
vine truth,  we  are  willing  to  meet  them  on  any  arena 
they  prefer. 

Dr.  H.  says,  "  Origen  was  the  first  to  defend  it." 
Then  who  was  Origen?  He  was  born  A.  D.  185, 
and  of  course  came  to  maturity  about  one  hundred 
years  after  the  death  of  the  apostle  John.  He  was 
a  man  of  great  learning.     He  became  pious  in  early 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  123 

life.  He  became  a  prominent  and  very  influential 
Christian  minister,  and  was  well  acquainted  with  the 
practices  of  the  church  from  the  days  of  the  apostles. 
Let  Dr.  Howell  and  the  Dippers  explain  it  to  com- 
mon sense  how  it  is  possible  for  such  a  man  to  be 
so  deceived  in  reference  to  such  an  ordinance  as  in- 
fant baptism.  Origen,  in  defending  this  ordinance, 
appeals  to  the  Scriptures,  the  example  of  the  apostles, 
and  the  practice  of  the  church.  How  was  it  possible 
for  Origen  to  make  such  an  appeal  before  the  thou- 
sands of  Christians  then  living,  unless  it  was  known 
to  all  that  the  ordinance  had  been  practiced  as  he 
declared?  If  it  were  a  human  invention,  Origen 
and  thousands  of  others  must  have  known  the  fact; 
and  if  it  could  be  supposed  that  he  was  sufficiently 
corrupt  to  conceal  the  fiict.  and  to  attempt  to  deceive 
and  corrupt  the  church,  still  there  were  then  living 
thousands  of  aged  Christians  who  personally  kne^v* 
the  practice  of  the  church  in  this  respect  from  the 
age  next  succeeding  the  apostles.  Why  did  none 
of  them  contradict  Origen  ?  Why  did  no  one  leave 
it  on  record,  that  infant  baptism  was  foisted  into  the 
church  at  such  a  time,  and  by  such  a  man  ?  Had 
no  one  in  that  age  except  Origen  "  rubbed  his  back 
against  a  college  wall"  ? 

Dr.  Howell  has  no  right,  in  the  absence  of  proof, 
to  affirm  that  infant  baptism  had  been  foisted  into 
the  church  at  this  early  day.  If  he  affirm,  he  is 
bound   by  every  rule  of  honorable   controversy  to 


124  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

support  his  affirmation  by  competent  testimony. 
There  is  no  such  testimony,  or  the  Doctor  would 
have  produced  it.  He  admits  that  it  was  practiced, 
and  that  Origen  defended  it  as  early  as  the  year 
252.  But  he  attempts  to  prove  that  it  was  unknown 
to  the  church  before  this  period,  and  the  proof  is  in 
these  words  : 

"It  was,"  as  he  [Origen]  tells  us,  "  a  subject  of 
'frequent  inquiry  among  the  brethren,'  consequently 
it  must  have  been  a  new  topic.  '  Brethren'  did  not 
understand  it." 

In  all  the  annals  of  controversy  a  more  miserable 
fetch  cannot  be  found.  There  was  "  frequent  in- 
quiry among  the  brethren"  about  infant  baptism, 
and  that  proves  that  it  was  "  a  new  topic"  !  Well, 
then,  it  must  still  be  "  a  new  topic ;"  for  now  there 
is  at  least  as  much  inquiry  as  there  was  sixteen  hun- 
dred years  ago.  But  why  does  not  our  author,  like 
an  honest  friend  of  truth,  tell  his  readers  the  ques- 
tions in  reference  to  infant  baptism,  which  were  agi- 
tated in  Origen's  day  ?  Bid  those  questions  relate  to 
the  divine  origin  of  the  rite,  or  to  the  time  of  admin" 
istering  it,  and  the  eifocts  tliat  followed  ? 

But  again,  our  author  tells  us  that  infant  baptism 
was  not  mentioned  by  any  of  the  earlier  Christian 
writers  ;  but  "  Origen  was  the  first  to  defend  it." 
He  dares  not  say  that  Origen  introduced  it,  but 
merely  defended  it.  Then  it  is  plain,  from  his  own 
showing,  that  it  had  been  introduced  before  it  was 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  125 

defended.  Again  he  declares  tliat  Justin  Martyr 
does  not  mention  infant  baptism,  and  argues  from 
his  silence  that  the  rite  was  not  practiced  in  his  clay. 
Then  of  course  he  must  admit  that  Justin  would 
have  noticed  the  fact  if  it  had  been  foisted  into  the 
church  in  his  day. 

Then  let  us  put  the  Doctor's  historical  facts  to- 
gether, that  we  may  see  how  they  look.  Justin  Mar- 
tyr was  beheaded  about  A.  D.  167,  and  according  to 
Dr.  H.,  infant  baptism  was  up  to  that  time  unknown  ; 
but  Origen  found  the  practice  so  prevalent,  when  he 
came  on  the  stage  of  action,  that  he  defended  it  as 
an  apostolic  ordinance,  which  had  been  in  use  all  the 
while.  Now,  if  Justin  was  beheaded  in  A.  D.  167, 
and  Origen  was  born  in  A.  D.  185,  then,  by  Dr. 
Howell's  own  account,  infant  baptism  must  have  been 
introduced,  and  become  prevalent  in  the  church, 
without  exciting  any  controversy,  in  the  short  space 
of  38  years,  which  intervened  between  the  death  of 
Justin  and  the  maturity  of  Origen  !  And  (what  is 
entirely  unaccountable  here)  Ireneus,  a  learned  and 
pious  minister,  was  in  the  prime  of  life  and  full  ac- 
tivity during  this  whole  period.  He  studied  under 
Polycarp,  and  Polycarp  studied  with  the  Apostle 
John ;  and  yet  Dr.  Howell's  account  of  the  intro- 
duction of  infant  baptism  would  place  it  in  the  time 
of  this  holy  and  vigilant  man,  without  an  utterance 
from  him  against  the  abuse.  Dr.  H.  himself,  no 
matter  how  much  he  tries,  cannot  believe  that  amat- 
11* 


126  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

ter  so  important  as  infant  baptism  could  have  been 
foisted  into  the  church  in  the  da3^s  of  the  immediate 
disciples  of  the  apostles,  without  meeting  the  decid- 
ed opposition  of  such  men  as  Ireneus,  Theophilus  of 
Antioch,  Philip  of  Gortyna,  &c.  These  men  were 
decided  opponents  to  every  departure  from  apostolic 
usage.  Yet  not  a  man  among  them  questioned  the 
lawfulness  of  infant  baptism.  Some  thought  it  ought, 
like  circumcision,  to  be  administered  on  the  eighth 
day  after  birth,  others  believed  convenience  might 
regulate  the  time.  Some  supposed  that  our  Lord's 
words  to  Nicodemus  justified  the  conclusion  that  the 
divine  Spirit  always  accompanied  baptism,  and  of 
course  that  the  baptized,  whether  infants  or  adults, 
were  cleansed  from  all  sin  which  had  been  previous- 
ly committed;  others  ascribed  no  such  effects  to  bap- 
tism. These  are  the  points  to  which  "  frequent  in- 
quiry among  the  brethren"  chiefly  related.  Then, 
on  his  own  ground.  Dr.  H.  is  utterly  at  fault. 

Still  again,  our  author's  whole  argument,  from  the 
silence  of  Justin  Martyr  and  Ireneus,  is  as  baseless 
as  the  dreams  of  night ;  Justin,  born  in  the  days  of 
the  Apostle  John,  speaking  of  those  who  were  mem- 
bers of  the  church  in  his  day,  says :  "  A  part  of 
these  were  sixty  or  seventy  years  old,  who  were  made 
disciples  to  Christ  from  their  infancy."  By  all  ac- 
quainted with  the  language  of  the  fathers,  it  is  known 
that  they,  like  ourselves,  apply  the  words  "  disciples 
of  Christ"  only  to  those  who  are  baptized.     If  Jus- 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  127 

tin  wrote  these  words  even  as  late  as  the  year  he  was 
beheaded,  there  were  then  in  the  church  persons  who 
had  been  baptized  in  infancy  during  the  life  of  the 
Apostle  John. 

Ireneus,  born  A.  D.  97,  before  the  death  of  the 
Apostle  John,  says :  '■  Christ  came  to  save  all  per- 
sons who  by  him  are  born  again  to  God ;  infants,  and 
little  ones,  and  children,  and  youth,  and  elder  per- 
sons ;"  and  he  himself  tells  us  that  by  being  "  born 
again"  he  means  baptized  ;  because  it  is  by  baptism 
that  we  are  visibly  born  into  the  church,  I  quote 
these  passages  not  as  authority  for  infant  baptism. 
For  authority  I  appeal  to  the  Bible  alone.  But  our 
opponents  dash  off  into  the  writings  of  the  fathers, 
and  there  practice  the  same  wily  arts  of  perversion 
which  they  display  on.  our  modern  creeds.  They  as- 
sert that  by  the  testimony  of  the  fathers  infant  bap- 
tism was  unknown  until  the  middle  of  the  third  cen- 
tury. I  go  to  the  fathers  and  prove  by  their  direct 
testimony  that  there  were  then  living  in  the  church 
persons  who  had  been  baptized  in  their  infancy  be- 
fore the  death  of  the  Apostle  John.  They  may 
just  as  well  quit  their  vagaries,  and  go  back  within 
the  sacred  precincts  of  the  Bible.  If  it  sustains 
infant  baptism,  we  will  not  ask  leave  of  the  fathers 
to  practice  it.  If  it  gives  us  no  authority  for  the 
rite,  we  will  not  seek  the  protection  of  the  fathers. 

Dr.  Howell,  then,  must  not  assert  that  no  one  men- 
tions infant  baptism  before  the  middle  of  the  third 


128 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 


century.  It  is  wrong.  On  liis  own  showing,  his  as- 
sumption is  false,  and  the  presentation  of  all  the 
facts  places  him  in  a  deplorable  condition.  Besides, 
he  often  tells  us  that  infant  baptism  is  of  Popish 
origin — is  a  Popish  superstition,  &e.  ;  and  here  he 
himself  proves  that  it  was  practiced  at  least  three 
hundred  and  fifty  years  before  tJie.re  was  a  Fope  I 
One  who  takes  so  little  care  of  himself,  must  not 
wonders  if  others  care  as  little  for  him.  Let  him 
know  that  God  can  give  up  the  foes  of  his  truth  to 
contradict  and  confute  themselves,  and  thus  to  neu- 
tralize their  own  influence. 

In  the  beginning  of  this  chapter,  we  meet  this  con- 
temptible assertion — "  Infant  baptism  is  the  off- 
spring of  superstition,''^  with  half  a  page  of  similar 
stuff.  Dr.  Howell  and  the  Dippers  would  do  well 
to  recollect  that  Christ  requires  us  to  receive  little 
children  in  his  name,  and  that  there  is  no  authority 
to  receive  any  in  His  name  without  baptism.  Is  it 
superstition  to  obey  Him  ?  Is  it  a  superstition  to 
regard  infants  as  being  within  the  constitution  of 
divine  grace  and  the  kingdom  of  God  ?  Is  it  super- 
stition to  acknowledge  these  great  truths  by  bap- 
tism, as  God  has  appointed  ?  It  is  very  fine,  indeed, 
for  such  words  to  be  used  by  those  who  "  dreamed" 
some  queer  thing,  and  in  consequence  joined  the 
church  at  the  next  "  monthly  meeting," — for  those 
who  "heard  the  Lord  from  the  fork  of  a  big  poplar," 
or  "  from  the  heart  of  a  black-berry  patch,"  call 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  129 

tliem  to 2')reac/t  tJie  gosjjel — for  those  who,  for  fear  of 
''bad  luck,"  could  not  be  persuaded  to  begin  any 
work,  or  set  out  on  a  journey  on  Friday,  but  have 
no  objections  to  Sunday.  TJiey  talk  about  super- 
stition ! 

After  two  pages  of  sheer  abuse,  our  author  comes 
to  tell  us  wherein  this  superstition  consists  : 

'-  The  opinion  began  to  prevail  as  early  as  the  mid- 
dle of  the  second  century,  that  there  is  in  baptism 
some  mysterious,  secret,  inexplicable  efficacy,  which 
conveys  the  grace  of  Grod  to  the  soul  of  the  recipi- 
ent !  No  one,  whether  adult  or  infant,  was  consid- 
ered safe  who  should  die  without  having  obtained 
the  benefits  of  these  cleansing  influences.  These 
were,  mainly,  the  superstitions  that  originally  pro- 
duced infant  baptism.  From  this  accumulation  of 
theological  impurities,  like  Python  from  the  mud  of 
the  deluge,  sprang  infant  baptism." 

Here  it  is  again.  Every  reader  will  remember 
how  zealous  our  author  was,  in  the  third  chapter  of 
this  very  work,  to  convict  infant  baptism  of  a  denial 
of  human  depravity.  Now  he  tells  us  that  it  origin- 
ated in  a  superstitious  belief  that  baptism  will 
cleanse  depravity  from  the  soul !  He  certainly  took 
lessons  from  Proteus,  when  he  should  have  been 
studying  the  Bible.  He  says  that  infant  baptism 
originates  in  a  superstitious  notion  of  cleansing  from 
guilt,  and  yet  utterly  denies  that  there  is  any  guilt ! ! 
Now,  let  us  have  one  thing  or  another.     It  is  in- 


130  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

effably  puerile  to  continue  blustering  before  the 
Christian  public.  We  have  proved  by  his  own  wit- 
ness, Justin  Martj^r,  that  infant  baptism  was  prac- 
ticed in  the  Christian  church  before  the  death  of  the 
apostle  John  ;  and  in  the  extract  before  us  he  says 
that  the  superstition  from  which  it  sprang  "  began  to 
prevail  as  early  as  the  middle  of  the  second  cen- 
tury." How  could  infant  baptism  spring  from  an 
error  that  was  not  in  existence  for  nearly  a  century 
after  the  time  we  have  proved  it  to  be  practiced  ? 
"We  shall  not  now  be  surprised  to  hear  that  the  sus- 
pension bridge  is  the  cause  of  the  great  falls  of 
Niagara. 

It  would  be  very  easy  to  prove  that  the  super- 
stition to  which  Dr.  H.  refers  is  the  mother  of  im- 
mersion  ;  and  that  it  waged  war  with  infant  baptism, 
but  was  never  able  to  expel  it  from  the  church. 
Immersion  has  ever  been  the  foe  of  baptism,  and 
especially  of  infant  baptism.  When  men  began  to 
attribute  to  baptism  the  divine  power  of  washing  sin 
away  from  the  soul,  and  of  purifying  the  heart,  they 
supposed,  of  course,  that  these  effects  varied  with 
the  quantity  of  water.  They  removed  baptism  from 
its  place  as  an  emblem  of  the  blood  of  sprinkling,  and 
installed  it  with  all  the  honors  of  an  agent  in  the 
office  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  first  step  taken,  the 
downward  progress  was  easy.  The  intention  of  the 
ordinance  being  overlooked,  the  change  of  its  out- 
ward form  would  follow  of  course. 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  131 

It  was  thought  that  a  dipping  being  a  much  more 
thorough  washing  than  sprinkling,  must  be  prefer- 
able ;  and  so  it  is,  if  baptism  be  a  real  ivashing^  in- 
stead of  an  emblematic  cleansing^  referring  to  the 
sprinkled  blood  of  atonement.  It  was  this  very 
superstition  which,  with  Peter's  extravagance,  cried 
out,  "  Lord,  not  mj  feet  only,  but  also  my  hands  and 
my  head."  If  a  little  water  be  good,  a  great  deal 
is  better.  Immersion  is  the  spawn  of  this  supersti- 
tion. Still  these  ancient  Dippers  acknowledged  that 
sprinkling  is  the  proper,  Scriptural  baptism ;  and 
they  referred  to  the  Scriptures  for  proof  on  this 
point,  but  defended  immersion  solely  with  the  philos- 
ophy that  if  a  little  water  does  good,  much  will  do 
better.  The  same  argument  is  the  principal  sup- 
port of  immersion  to  this  day.  It  has  continually 
opposed  infant  baptism  either  with  a  denial  of  human 
depravity,  or  a  denial  that  infants  are  within  the 
range  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  or  the  kingdom  of 
God. 

Our  author  shows  that  some  of  the  fathers  advised 
to  defer  the  baptism  of  infants,  unless  in  the  case  of 
approaching  death  ;  and  he  argues  from  this  fact  that 
they  disapproved  of  infant  baptism.  If  he  had  been 
so  candid  as  to  give  his  readers  all  the  facts  in  this 
case,  he  would  have  saved  himself  the  trouble  of 
forming  this  argument  from  human  authority.  I  do 
suppose  that  Dr.  H.  knows  very  well  that  these 
fathers   believed   that   baptism,  and  especially  im- 


132  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

merslon,  has  the  effect  to  wash  away  all  the  guilt 
contracted  ujd  to  the  moment  of  its  administration — 
and  that  for  sins  committed  after  baptism,  other 
specifics  were  recommended.  As  infants  were  deemed 
incapable  of  using  other  remedies,  it  was  considered 
best  to  defer  their  baptism  as  long  as  safety  would 
allow.  TJiis  is  the  reason  why  it  ivas  delayed.  No 
one  questioned  the  divine  origin  of  infant  baptism. 
We  are  compelled  to  say  that  the  Doctor's  shuffling 
here  savors  more  of  special  pleading  than  the  grave 
and  candid  discussions  of  a  Christian  teacher  in 
earnest  to  bring  forth  to  open  daylight  '•  the  truth, 
the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth." 

Dr.  Howell  next  takes  a  sweep  round  Carthage, 
Milan,  Constantinople  and  even  as  far  as  Alexandria 
in  Egypt,  calling  in  his  travels  on  the  catechumeni- 
cal  schools,  established  for  the  training  of  young 
men  in  Scripture  doctrine.  Everywhere  he  goes,  he 
finds  infant  baptism  practiced  with  a  view  to  cleanse 
the  infant  from  the  guilt  of  sin.  From  this  fact  he 
concludes  that  the  ordinance  had  its  origin  in  this 
superstition.  How  logical !  But  stay.  Was  not 
adult  baptism,  in  all  these  places,  administered  with 
the  very  same  intent  ?  Dr.  H.  knows  it  was.  Then, 
I  ask,  does  it  follow  that  adult  baptism  originated  in 
the  same  superstition  ? 

Not  a  hint  can  he  find  about  the  origin  of  infant 
baptism.  His  own  witnesses  testify  that  it  has  been 
practiced  from  the  days  of  the  apostles ;  and  yet, 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  133 

when  he  finds  baptism  administered  with  supersti- 
tious views,  the  same  fact  proves  the  human  origin 
of  infant  baptism,  and  the  divine  origin  of  adult 
baptism  ?  What  does  Dr.  H.  mean  ?  and  what  is 
the  matter  with  him  ?  I  know  Dippers  who  plunge 
people  with  a  view  to  wash  away  their  sins ;  but 
really,  it  never  occurred  to  me  that  this  fact  proves 
the  human  origin  of  immersion.  How  does  Dr.  H. 
view  that  fact  ? 

Dr.  Howell's  investigations  simply  prove  that  a 
foolish  superstition  had  engrafted  itself  upon  the 
ordinance  of  Christian  baptism,  and  appeared  as  much 
in  the  baptism  of  adults  as  in  that  of  infants.  When 
will  Christian  men  secure  the  esteem  of  honorable 
men  of  the  world  by  such  devices  in  argument  as 
that  in  the  example  before  us  ? 

The  next  step  in  the  work  before  us  is  to  prove 
that  '•  infant  baptism  does  overwhelm  and  destroy 
the  Scripture  doctrine  of  predestination." 

Then  it  seems  that  "  sprinkling  a  little  water  in  a 
babe's  face"  is  what  the  Dippers  call  ^^ overwhelm- 
ing.'^'' Then  it  is  not  so  far  from  immersion,  after 
all.  And  it  not  only  overwhelms,  it  destroys — 
obruit — "  the  Scripture  doctrine  of  predestina- 
tion !" — Infant  baptism  must  be  a  deep  and  rapid 
stream,  and  what  is  very  strange,  it  runs  backward 
into  all  eternity,  and  sweeps  before  it  the  counsels  of 
the  Lord  !  How  could  it  rise  in  the  third  century  ? 
The  Dippers,  with  all  their  water  propensities,  might 
12 


134  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

do  well  to  keep  aloof,  as  this  clestnietive  stream 
might  bear  them,  no  one  knows  whither. 

And  after  it  has  "  overwhelmed  and  destroj^ed  the 
Scripture  doctrine  of  predestination,"  it  is  rash,  if 
not  foolish,  in  Dr.  H.  to  make  any  attempt  to  arrest 
its  progress,  unless  he  deems  himself  stronger  than 
"  The  Scripture  doctrine  of  predestination." 

Our  author  continually  supposes  that  all  Pedo- 
baptists  hold  that  the  faith  of  the  parent  is  trans- 
ferred to  the  infant,  in  order  to  qualify  it  for  baptism. 
That  some  who  practice  infant  baptism  should  not 
understand  it,  is  no  more  to  be  wondered  at  than 
that  some  of  those  who  practice  immersion  should 
misapprehend  it.  Still,  to  bring  up  any  practical 
misapprehension  of  some,  as  an  argument  against 
any  ultimate  principle,  is  the  last  and  weakest  effort 
of  sophistry.  With  the  great  body  of  Pedo-baptists, 
faith  is  no  more  a  qualification  for  baptism  than  for 
a  place  in  the  kingdom  of  God.  They  hold  that  of 
right  baptism  belongs  to  every  member  of  that  king- 
dom, and  that  every  infant,  of  course,  has  a  right  to 
baptism,  as  an  open  declaration  that  it  belongs  to 
God  in  the  kingdom  of  his  Son. 

But  as  'baptism  is  a  solemn  covenant  transaction, 
in  which  those  coming  to  it  engage  to  be  the  Lord's, 
none  but  believers  are  competent  to  enter  into  it. 
One  who  does  not  believe  God's  covenant  cannot  en- 
ter into  it;  but  he  that  believes  it,  enters  into  it 
heartily.     The  Lord's  covenant  is,  that  He  will  bless 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  135 

the  means  of  religious  instruction  -which  He  has  ap- 
pointed, and  make  them  effectual  to  salvation.  Then, 
he  that  believes  this  covenant,  properly  engages  that 
his  children  shall  forever  be  the  Lord's.  He  has 
unwavering  confidence  in  the  means  of  training  which 
God  has  appointed  and  promised  to  bless.  He  be- 
lieves that  God  will  make  those  means  effectual  to 
the  conversion,  sanctification  and  salvation  of  his 
children;  and  he  is  therefore  competent  heartily  to 
declare,  by  baptism,  that  his  children  are  the  Lord's, 
and  that  confiding  in  the  blessing  of  a  covenant- 
keeping  God,  they  shall  forever  be  the  Lord's.  Not 
so  with  the  unbeliever.  He  has  no  confidence  in 
God's  promises,  nor  in  his  appointed  means.  He 
disagrees  with  God.  He  thinks  it  best  not  to  tram- 
mel the  mind  of  his  children  with  religious  instruc- 
tion, but  to  leave  them  to  themselves.  Then  it  is 
plain  that  he  is  not  competent  to  enter  into  cov- 
enant with  God  in  regard  to  things  in  which  he  has  no 
faith,  and,  indeed,  is  opposed  to  God.  Of  course, 
his  children  cannot  partake  of  these  benefits,  although 
theirs  by  eternal  right ;  because  their  unbelieving 
parents  refuse  to  agree  with  God  as  to  the  proper 
course  of  religious  training.  The  covenant  engage- 
ment is  ratified  and  sealed  by  baptism,  and  the  bless- 
ing is  secured  by  fulfilling  the  covenant  in  a  proper 
course  of  religious  training.  For  all  this,  none  but 
believers  are  competent;  and  therefore  no  children 
but  those  of  believers  are  to  be  baptized.     If  the 


136  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

children  of  unbelievers  suffer,  it  is  not  the  fault  of 
God,  or  the  gospel;  but  of  the  unbelief  and  obsti- 
nate rebellion  of  their  wicked  parents,  who  refuse  to 
employ  God's  means  for  the  salvation  of  their  chil- 
dren. 

It  must  be  known  to  Dr.  H.  that  Pedo-baptists  as 
readily  administer  the  ordinance  to  servants  and 
wards  of  believers  as  to  their  own  children.  They 
never  inquire  whether  the  parents  of  such  children 
are  or  were  believers,  or  not.  If  the  children  have 
secured  to  them  a  religious  education,  it  is  all  that 
is  required ;  because  the  blessing  comes  through  in- 
struction, and  not  by  natural  ties.  This  is  the  reason 
why  Pedo-baptists  have  ever  been  so  diligent  in  the 
religious  instruction  of  their  families.  Why,  then, 
the  perpetual  repetition  of  the  insane  slang  about 
"grace,  faith  and  election  being  propagated  by 
natural  generation  "  ? 

I  conclude  the  review  of  this  chapter  with  another 
sample  of  the  Christian  courtesy  of  Dr.  Howell  and 
the  Dippers.     Here  it  is  : 

"  Infant  baptism  must,  and  does  still,  look  for 
support  to  the  superstitions  by  which  it  was  origin- 
ally produced.  Whoever  submits  to  such  supersti- 
tions in  one  department  of  religion,  will  soon  be 
ready  to  give  up  his  judgment  and  common  sense  in 
all  the  others.  Thus  a  downward  progress  is  com- 
menced, which  cannot  be  arrested  short  of  the  dark 
caverns  of  popery." 


CHAPTEE IX. 

"  INFANT  BAPTISM  IS  AN    EVIL  ;    BECAUSE  IT  SUBVERTS  THE  TEUE 
DOCTRINE  OF  INFANT  SALVATION." 

This  chapter  is  marked  by  bold  assumption  and 
magisterial  dictation  excelling  anything  of  the  sort 
I  remember  to  have  read.  The  subject  is  intro- 
duced with  these  questions : — "  Of  departed  infants, 
what  is  the  eternal  destiny  ?  Are  they  happy  or 
miserable  ?"  The  answer  is  :  "  We  believe  that  all 
infants  are  saved  unconditionally."  As  the  word 
"unconditionally"  means  "without  condition,"  I 
supposed  at  first  that  the  Dippers  mean  to  say  that 
infants  are  saved  without  regard  to  the  merits  of  our 
blessed  Saviour,  whose  righteousness  is  the  sole  con- 
dition— or  term  forming  the  ground — of  our  ac- 
ceptance with  God.  This  view  also  accords  exactly 
with  their  former  declaration  in  this  book,  that  in- 
fants are  not  within  the  covenant  of  grace,  or  the 
kingdom  of  God. 

But,  by  reading  further,  I  am  led  to  believe,  that 
by  the  erroneous  use  of  the  word  "  unconditionally  " 
12* 


138  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

they  mean  ivUhout  faith  and  repentance^  wliicli  are 
by  some  writers  called  "  proximate  conditions  "  of 
salvation.  The  Christian  world  will  certainly  liail  it 
with  gladness  as  a  new  era  in  the  progress  of  Chris- 
tianity, that  even  the  Dippers,  through  their  public 
societies,  have  at  last  conceded  the  doctrine  of  in- 
fant salvation.  Our  author  makes  a  bold  flourish, 
with  bold  declarations,  that  they  have  always  be- 
lieved this  doctrine  ;  but  he  offers  not  a  word  of 
proof,  not  a  single  quotation  from  one  of  their  au- 
thors, ancient  or  modern,  to  sustain  his  bare  asser- 
tions. The  public  know  (for  they  have  not  spoken 
in  secret)  what  has  been  their  former  teaching  on 
this  subject.  Still,  if  even  now  they  are  willing  to 
abjure  their  errors,  let  us  not  jDursue  them  with  their 
former  sins  and  heresies.  Let  these  be  forgotten, 
and  let  us  strive  to  understand  what  they  now  be- 
lieve.    They  shall  speak  for  themselves  : 

"  We  believe  that  all  infants  are  saved  uncon- 
ditionally, through  the  application  to  them,  by  the 
Holy  Grhost,  of  the  redemption  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.  Thus  it  is  that,  being  redeemed  by  the 
blood  of  Christ,  they  are  saved  by  the  infinite  grace 
of  God.  To  prepare  them  for  happiness,  it  is  evi- 
dent that  the  redemption  of  Christ  must  be  applied 
by  the  Holy  Spirit,  to  their  purification  from  sin. 
Otherwise  they  would  be  incapable  of  eternal  life." 

In  these  extracts  we  submit  tlie  following  re- 
marks : 


EVILS    OF    DR.    KOWELL.  139 

1.  Here  our  author  repeats,  three  times,  the  con- 
ditions^ terms,  or  grounds,  on  which  infants  are  sav- 
ed ;  and  yet  declares  they  are  saved  "  uncondition- 
ally." The  conditions — terms  forming  the  ground 
— are  the  atoning  blood  of  the  Redeerper,  the  grace 
of  God,  and  the  application  of  them  by  the  Holy 
Spirit.  Without  these  conditions,  he  teaches  that 
they  cannot  be  saved,  and  still  avers  that  they  "  are 
saved  unconditionally  "  !  If  Dippers  would  only 
study  enough  to  express  their  own  views  with  per- 
spicuity, they  would  understand  others  better. 

2.  The  extracts  before  us  says,  "  We  believe  that 
all  infants  are  saved."  This  is  undoubtedly  on  the 
other  extreme ;  for  it  is  certain  that  many  infants 
grow  to  maturity,  sin  and  die  without  repentance, 
and  thus  are  forever  lost.  Our  author  complains 
bitterly  of  Presbyterians  for  saying  that  "  elect  in- 
fants, dying  in  infancy,  are  regenerated  and  saved  by 
Christ  through  the  Spirit."  But  he  does  not  state 
what  point  here  presented  is  obnoxious,  nor  do  we 
intend  here  to  enter  into  a  defence  of  any  of  the 
points  presented ;  but  we  remark,  that  on  the  points 
of  being  saved  through  Christ,  and  by  the  renewing 
of  the  Spirit,  our  author  seems  to  agree  with  them 
in  his  language  just  quoted.  He  certainly  will  not 
deny  that  some  die  in  infancy,  and  the  only  other 
point  is  "  elect  infants."  Right  or  wrong,  the  world 
knows,  that  Presbyterians  believe  in  election.  They 
here  teach,  that  while  some  of  the  elect  grow  to  ma- 


140  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

turitj,  are  converted,  sanctified  and  saved,  tlirough 
the  atonement  of  Christ,  others  of  them  die  in  in- 
fancy^ and  are  saved  through  the  same  atoning 
blood,  and  the  same  forgiving  spirit.  They  do  not 
affirm  that  any  who  die  m  infancy  are  lost;  but  only 
that  the  class  of  the  elect  who  die  in  infancy  are 
saved.  No  infant  damnation  can  be  wrung  from  the 
passage,  and  no  one  who  regards  his  reputation  as  a 
linguist  will  deliberately  assert  it.  The  only  differ- 
ence, then,  between  Presbyterians  and  Dippers  on 
this  point  is,  that  Dippers  believe  "  all  infants  are 
saved,"  and  Presbyterians  believe  that  while  many 
infants  grow  to  maturity,  and  die  in  unbelief,  all  the 
"  elect  infants  dying  in  infancy^  are  saved,''  and 
plainly,  that  none  but  "  elect  "  ones<r/o  die  in  infancy, 
the  Lord  taking  them  from  the  evils  that  might  pre- 
vent their  salvation.  How,  then,  does  "  infant  bap- 
tism subvert  the  true  doctrine  of  infant  salvation  "? 
3.  In  the  extracts  before  us,  it  is  further  declared, 
"  that  the  redemption  of  Christ  must  be  applied  [to 
infants]  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  to  their  purification  from 
sin."  Now,  for  the  Holy  Spirit  to  purify  from  sin 
by  applying  the  blood  of  Christ  to  the  heart,  is  the 
most  prominent  idea  expressed  by  being  baptized 
with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  is  also  the  great  idea  sym- 
bolized in  baptism  with  water.  If  Christ  baptizes 
infants  with  his  own  blood  and  Spirit,  why  may  not 
his  servants  baptize  them  with  water,  as  Peter  did, 
when  he  saw  the  Holy  Ghost  fall  on  his  hearers  as 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  141 

on  the  disciples  at  Pentecost,  and  he  remembered 
the  word  of  the  Lord,  "  John  indeed  baptized  with 
water ;  but  ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy 
Ghost-^  Again,  the  blood  of  Christ  that  effects  this 
purification  of  the  infant's  heart,  is  expressly  called 
"  the  blood  of  sprinkling."  If,  then,  as  Dr.  Howell 
himself  declares,  infants  are  purified  by  the  blood 
of  sprinkling,  applied  by  the  Holy  Spirit  in  his  bap- 
tismal cleansing,  why  in  the  name  of  all  common 
sense  ma}^  the}'-  not  be  sprinkled  with  clean  water  as 
a  sensible  illustration  of  these  divine  effects  ?  Cer 
tainly,  on  his  grounds,  infant  baptism  must  stand  ini 
movable.  Since,  then,  infant  baptism  so  beautiful 
ly  symbolizes  the  purification  from  sin  and  the  sal 
vation  of  infants  by  the  blood  and  Spirit  of  Christ 
it  would  be  difficult  for  any  one  to  show  how  it  '•  sub. 
verts  the  true  doctrine  of  infant  salvation."  Are 
philosophy  and  geometry  '•'  subverted"  by  t\\Q  figures 
and  diagrams  used  to  illustrate  them?  Immersion 
backwards  into  cold  water  really  seems  to  give  the 
mind  a  slant  in  the  same  direction. 

4.  In  the  extracts  before  us,  it  is  declared  that 
"  infants  are  saved  by  the  infinite  grace  of  God." 
This  doctrine  is  repeated  throughout  the  chapter. 
To  infants,  our  author  applies  the  words  of  Paul — 
"  Where  sin  abounded,  grace  did  much  more  abound." 
We  may  cheerfully  admit  as  true,  the  conclusion  to 
which  he  arrives,  without  assenting  to  the  process 
*  Acts,  11 :15,  16. 


142  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

wliicli  conducts  him  to  the  result,  or  even  the  prem- 
ises from  which  he  sets  out.  All  that  we  care  here 
to  notice,  is  the  admitted  fact,  that  "  infants  are 
saved  by  the  grace  of  God." 

It  may  now  be  remembered  that,  on  pages  97,  98, 
and  in  other  parts  of  this  work,  our  author  condemns, 
as  a  fearful  error,  the  doctrine  that  infants  are  in  the 
covenant  of  grace,  or  in  the  kingdom  of  God.  Then, 
we  greatly  desire  to  know  what  ideas  the  Dippers 
entertain  about  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  kingdom 
of  God.  In  its  most  comprehensive  sense,  the  king- 
dom of  God  embraces  the  whole  church,  militant  and 
triumphant,  visible  and  spiritual.  The  declaration 
that  they  are  no  integral  part  of  the  kingdom  of 
God,  shuts  infants  out  of  bliss  forever,  unless  per- 
sons may  be  saved  without  being  in  the  church  either 
here  or  in  heaven.  But,  if  they  belong  to  the  king- 
dom of  God,  either  visible  or  spiritual,  that  fact  en- 
titles them  to  baptism,  and  they  must  have  it,  or  be 
defeated  of  their  rights. 

By  the  covenant  of  grace  all  Christians  (if  I  un- 
derstand them)  mean  to  comprehend  all  those  stipu- 
lated principles,  which  God  has  published  to  the  world, 
as  the  rules  that  direct  and  limit  the  bestowment  of 
his  saving  grace  upon  mankind.  An  unbelieving  or 
an  impenitent  adult  is  beyond  the  covenant  of  grace  ; 
because  he  stands  outside  of  the  rules  by  which  the 
grace  of  God  operates  to  the  sanctification  and  salva- 
tion of  sinners.     To  be  a  partaker  of  saving  grace, 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  143 

sucli  an  adult  must  come  witliin  the  regulations  of 
grace.  He  must  open  his  heart  to  Him  that  knocks. 
He  must  "  be  converted,  and  become  as  a  little 
child," — must  come  into  the  kingdom  of  God's  dear 
Son,  where  grace  is  dispensed  to  the  purification  and 
salvation  of  the  soul.  Otherwise,  saving  grace  does 
not  reach  him.  It  cannot  overstep  its  own  bounds, 
although  it  can  purify  and  save  any  sinner  who  will 
come  within  its  rules.  Now,  if  infants  are  not  within, 
the  covenant  of  grace,  how  in  the  name  of  common 
sense  can  they  be  saved  by  grace  ?  If  they,  like  im- 
penitent adults,  are  out  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  I 
can  see  no  way  for  either  grace  or  salvation  to  reach 
them.  It  is  plainly  absurd  to  think  of  grace  as  op- 
erating beyond  its  own  covenanted  limits,  and  equally 
absurd  to  suppose  that  infants,  by  faith  and  repent- 
ance, may  be  brought  within  the  range  of  divine 
grace.  Then  infants  must  be  born  within  the  cov- 
enant of  divine  grace,  and  must  remain  in  that  rela- 
tion until,  by  personal  sin,  they  forfeit  its  advantages, 
or  they  must  be  saved  without  grace,  or  they  must 
be  damned  for  sins  which  they  never  committed  ! ! ! 
One  of  these  alternatives  must  be  taken.  If  in- 
fants are  born  within  the  covenant  of  grace,  its  pro- 
visions may  reach  them,  and  they  may  be  saved.  In 
that  case  they  ought  to  be  baptized ;  for  even  Dr. 
Howell  admits  that  the  covenant  of  grace  "  has  bap- 
tism annexed."  Whenever  adults  are  converted  and 
become  as  little  children  in  the  covenant  of  grace 


144  EVILS    OF   DR.    HOWELL. 

and  kingdom  of  God,  tliey  become  proper  subjects  of 
baptism.  They  are  not  baptized  to  bring  them  into 
the  covenant,  but  to  testify  that  they  are  in.  So 
infants,  being  within  it  during  their  personal  inno- 
cency,  should  be  baptized  to  testify  that  they  are  in  it, 
and  are  entitled  to  its  benefits  until,  by  voluntary 
transgression,  they  forfeit  these  favors.  If  infants 
are  holy  enough  to  be  saved,  they  are  exactly  holy 
enough  to  be  baptized.  The  best  saint  on  earth  is 
not  released  from  his  fallen  nature,  until  death  brings 
him  a  discharge.  Infants  are  partakers  of  the  same 
fallen  nature,  and  death  brings  to  them  also  a  release 
from  the  lusts  of  the  flesh,  and  puts  them  into  a 
state,  where  every  faculty  and  every  susceptibility 
of  the  mind  may  be  developed,  expanded  and  sanc- 
tified by  the  Holy  Spirit,  without  the  counter  work- 
ings of  the  flesh,  as  in  the  case  of  the  believer  who 
has,  through  Jesus  Christ,  won  the  victory  over  sin 
and  Satan.  As  the  infiint  is  not  a  personal  trans- 
gressor, no  personal  repentance  is  necessary.  By 
virtue  of  Christ's  mediatorial  rights,  having  purchas- 
ed for  all  the  free  grace  unto  justification  of  life,  the 
infant,  though  inheriting  a  fallen  nature,  is  born  with- 
in his  kingdom  and  the  operation  of  his  saving  grace, 
purchased  by  his  own  blood,  and  ought  to  be  baptiz- 
ed as  sucb.  If  he  does  not  live,  like  Esau,  to  sell 
his  birthright  in  this  grace,  he  is  saved  by  it,  of 
course.  If  he  live  to  act  in  his  own  voluntary  per- 
sonality under  the  influence  of  his  fallen  nature,  he 


EVILS    OF    DR.    PIOV.'ELL.  145 

will  disinherit  himself  by  sin  ;  and  before  he  can 
again  enter  into  the  covenant  and  kingdom  of  God's 
free  grace,  he  must  repent  and  become  such  as  he 
was  when  a  little  child.  He  then  re-enters  the  king- 
dom, and  if  baptized  in  infanc}^,  he  surely  needs  a 
repetition  of  the  ordinance  no  more  than  a  h3'-pocrite, 
who  was  dipped  into  some  immersion-church,  needs 
again  to  be  dipped  when  he  conies  to  be  truly  con- 
verted. Each  merely  owns  and  ratifies  the  obliga- 
tion of  the  act  already  performed. 

If  "  infant  baptism  subverts  the  doctrine  of  infant 
salvation,"  because  it  declares  the  infant  then  to  be 
in  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  then  adult  baptism  must 
subvert  the  true  doctrine  of  adult  salvation  by  de- 
claring him  also  to  be  at  that  time  in  the  kingdom. 
Then,  to  get  an  objectionable  baptism,  we  must  in- 
stitute one  to  declare  that  the  subject  is  out  of  the 
kingdom ;  and  then  have  him  saved  by  grace  beyond 
the  limits  of  grace,  and  that  "  unconditionally"  upon 
the  conditions  of  Christ's  merits  and  the  Spirit's 
grace  !     Woe  to  such  intolerable  nonsense. 

Our  author,  feeling  himself  unable  to  meet  the 
argument  of  Pedo-baptists,  goes  to  the  more  congenial 
work  of  heaping  opprobrium  on  his  ojDponents.  He 
says:  "Methodists  and  Presbyterians  scarcely  know 
themselves  what  they  believe  on  the  subject"  of  in- 
fant baptism.  There  are  two  ways  of  accounting  for 
these  words.  Either  Methodists  and  Presbyterians 
are,  sure  enough;  monstrous  blockheads,  or  Dr.  How- 
13 


146  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

ell  is  incompetent  to  distinguish  between  blockheads 
and  men  of  sense.  Modesty  suggests  that  this  del- 
icate question  be  left  to  the  arbitrament  of  a  disin- 
terested world. 

Dr.  H.  notices  the  solemn  disavowals  of  Method- 
ists and  Presbyterians  concerning  their  belief  in 
any  regenerating  or  sanctifying  energy  of  baptism, 
and  thus  says  ". 

"  They  will  certainly  resent  the  suspicion  that 
they  suppose  infants  may,  under  an}^  circumstances, 
be  lost.  But  let  an  unbaptized  child  of  theirs  be 
sick,  and  in  danger.  The  utmost  trepidation  arises. 
Alarm  reigns.  Ah  !  disguise  it  as  you  may,  the  old 
superstition  is  still  in  their  hearts  (the  hearts  of 
Methodists  and  Presbyterians).  They  believe — and 
they  must  evince  the  fact — that  there  is  in  baptism 
some  sort  of  a  mysterious,  sacramental  efficacy,  that 
eifects  for  good  the  destiny  of  the  child  in  another 
word !" 

And  is  there  no  way  for  Dr.  Howell  to  defend  the 
Dippers  without  treachery  to  every  principle  of  hon- 
or ?  A  few  chapters  back,  Methodists  and  Presby- 
terians were  "  learned  and  pious,"  "  intelligent." 
"evangelical,"  "spiritual"  minded,  and  "pure" 
Christian  men  and  women.  Now  they  are  such  ig- 
noramuses they  "  scarcely  know  themselves  what 
they  believe,"  and  so  deceitful,  withal,  that  they 
will  even  *'  resent  the  suspicion"  of  holding  their  real 
sentiments  !     So  "  pious"  and  so  destitute  of  truth 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  147 

as  to  "  disguise"  their  own  views  !  Waging  exter- 
minating war  on  Dippers,  and  j^et  so  awed  by  their 
greatness  as  to  try  to  conceal  from  them,  by  deceit, 
the  sentiments  for  which  they  are  said  to  contend  ! 
Ah !  Doctor,  "  disguise  it  as  you  may,"  you  are  speak- 
ing out  of  the  abundance  of  your  own  heart ;  and 
you  are  filled  with  consternation  on  meeting  the 
eternal  truths  of  Pedo-baptists,  and  knowing  you 
never  can  refute  them,  you  charge  upon  them  such 
little,  silly  superstitions  as  can  be  exposed  by  any 
boy ;  and  then,  proclaiming  a  victory  for  yourself, 
you  proceed  to  your  own  laudation.  We  challenge 
you  to  put  away  your  petty  sectarianism,  and  come 
out  into  the  open  field  of  honorable  controversy, 
meeting,  like  a  fearless  warrior,  the  sentiments  we  ad- 
vance-, and  the  arguments  we  use,  without  the  de- 
ceitful play  before  the  public  of  manufacturing,  your- 
self, sentiments  and  arguments  for  us,  which  you 
deem  it  easy  for  you  to  confute. 

And  you  can  conceive  of  no  way  to  explain  the 
"  trepidation"  and  '•  alarm"  of  Pedo-baptists,  when 
an  unbaptized  infant  is  about  to  die,  except  the  be- 
lief "  that  there  is  in  baptism  some  sort  of  sacra- 
mental efficacy."  Why,  sir,  since  I  commenced  the 
review  of  this  chapter  of  your  book,  such  a  case  oc- 
curred, and  to  test  the  truth  of  your  allegations,  I 
asked  the  father,  who  came  for  me,  if  he  supposed 
that  baptism  would  have  any  sanctifying  or  saving 
efficacy  upon  his  dying  babe.     His  agonized  reply 


148  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

was,  "Oil!  no;  but  it  may  liave  some  on  me.  I 
Lave  not  yet  discharged  my  duty.  This  infant  is 
the  Lord's,  and  I  have  not  yet  by  baptism  made  the 
proper  acknowledgment  of  this  great  trutli."  Dip- 
pers suffer  no  "  apprehension,"  or  "  alarm''  on  such 
occasions;  because  they  have  shut  infants  out  of  the 
covenant  of  grace,  and  the  kingdom  of  God;  and 
have,  to  a  fearful  extent,  hardened  their  hearts 
against  the  tender  sympathies  of  the  gospel  by  ex- 
cluding, from  the  kingdom  of  God  and  the  com- 
munion of  saints,  the  millions  of  God's  own  regen- 
erated children,  who  refuse  to  submit  to  the  human 
dogma  of  dipping  in  green  and  stagnant  ponds,  in- 
stead of  the  sprinkling  of  clear  water,  as  the  Lord 
has  appointed. — Ez.  36  :  25. 

In  the  next  place,  our  author  tries  his  skill  at 
perverting  the  several  words  of  "  the  Protestant 
sects."  His  spite  seems  more  particularly  angry  at 
the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  and  to  expose 
his  unfairness  here,  will  sufficiently  vindicate  all. 
From  this  book  he  quotes  and  argues  as  follows : 

"  The  visible  church  consists  of  all  those  through- 
out the  world  that  profess  the  true  religion,  together 
with  their  children,  and  is  the  kingdom  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  the  house  and  family  of  God,  out  of 
which  there  is  no  ordinary  possibilitj^  of  salvation. 
It  follows,  of  course,  necessarily,  that  the  children 
of  those  who  do  not  '  profess' — are  not  in  the  church, 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  149 

and  for  them  there  is  no  ordinary  possibility  of  sal- 
vation." 

Here  we  may  remark  that  the  word  "  ordinary" 
means  "  according  to  established  order."  Now,  has 
Christ  established  it  as  a  rule  and  order  of  his 
kingdom,  that  all  who  believe  in  him,  shall  confess 
him  before  men,  separate  from  the  world,  and  unite 
with  his  church  ?  If  so,  this  is  the  "  ordinary"  way 
of  salvation.  If  others  are  saved,  it  is  plainly  in 
an  extraordinary  way.  If,  then,  the  declared  order 
of  salvation  requires  believers  to  unite  with  the  vis- 
ible church,  without  excluding  from  eternal  life  be- 
lievers, idiots,  or  infants,  not  possessing  such  advan- 
tages, then,  plainly,  the  book  is  right.  But  if  the 
established  order  of  salvation  be  out  of  the  church, 
then,  plainly,  the  book  is  wrong.  Dippers,  in  con- 
demning this  sentence,  seem  to  favor  the  doctrine, 
that  the  established  order  of  salvation  is  out  of  the 
dvurch^  and,  of  course,  other  things  being  equal,  an 
adult  or  an  infant  is  safer  out  of  the  church  than  in 
it !  If  this  be  not  the  point  of  the  remarks,  I  do 
not  understand  them. 

A  few  words  by  way  of  illustrating  the  refined 
manner  in  which  the  Dippers  speak  of  others,  shall 
close  our  review  of  this  chapter : 

"  It  is  affirmed  that  they  do  not,  especially  among 
us,  [our  influence  is  so  great,]  credit  this  doctrine  of 
baptismal  efficacy,  nor  believe  that  baptism  is  neces- 
sary to  the  salvation  of  infants.  If  not,  they  do  not 
13* 


150  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

believe  their  hoolcs !  If  not,  they  do  not  believe 
their  teachers  !  Why  do  they  still  hear,  and  sustain, 
and  obey  them  ?  We  have  now  seen  that  the  whole 
Pedo-baptist  world  make  the  salvation  of  infants 
conditional  [on  baptism].  If  Pedo-baptist  doctrines 
on  this  subject  be  true,  untold  millions  of  infants 
are  damned  !  Never  did  the  human  mind  conceive 
of  doctrines  more  absurd  and  revolting." 

This  is  only  a  small  sample  of  the  stuff  found  in 
this  chapter.  They  certainly  more  resemble  the 
ravings  of  a  bad  temper  than  the  sober  diction  of  a 
gentle  follower  of  the  lowly  Jesus.  The  author 
himself  is  better  informed,  and  this  whole  display  is 
for  sectarian  display,  regardless  of  the  judgment  of 
God. 


CHAPTEK  X. 

"  INFANT  BAPTISM  IS  AN  EVIL ;    BECAUSE  IT  LEADS  ITS  ADVOCATES 
INTO  REBELLION  AGAINST  THE  AUTHORITY  OF  JESUS  CHRIST." 

Why,  asks  the  reader,  are  not  Pedo-baptists  as 
obedient  to  their  Lord  and  Saviour  as  Immersion- 
ists  ?  No,  no,  say  our  opponents.  We  Dippers  are 
the  only  people  on  earth  who  obey  Christ.  Charity, 
humility,  zeal  and  meekness  are  nothing  without 
immersion.  No  obedience  can  be  rendered  without 
immersion.  To  be  "pious  and  evangelical"  without 
immersion,  is  dreadful  rebellion.  Nothing  will  do 
but  immersion.  But  let  us  see,  in  the  words  of  our 
accusers,  what  rebellion  we  are  guilty  of: 

"  1.  Infant  baptism  leads  its  advocates  into  re- 
bellion against  the  authority  of  Christ  in  regard  to 
the  persons  to  be  baptized.  These  are  described 
definitely  in  the  apostolic  commission." 

Then  let  us  look  closely  at  each  clause  of  this 
commission  with  true  intent  to  find  the  "  definite 
description."  (a)  "  Go  ye  into  the  world."  This 
clause  answers  the  question,  where  are  we  all  to  go  ? 


152  EVILS    OF   DR.    HOWELL. 

Ads.  "Into  all  the  world."  (5)  "And  preach  the 
gospel  to  every  creature."  This  clause  answers  three 
questions.  What  must  we  do  ?  Ans.  "  Preach." 
What  must  we  preach  ?  Ans.  "  The  gospel."  To 
I  whom  must  we  preach  the  gospel  ?  Ans.  "  To  every 
creature." 

What  is  the  gospel  ?  Ans.  (c)  "  He  that  believ- 
eth,  and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved ;  but  he  that  be- 
lieveth  not,  shall  be  damned."     Then,  who  are  to  be 

baptized  ?    Ans. .    Well,  then,  who  are  to  be 

saved?  Ans.  "  He  that  believeth,  and  is  baptized." 
What  do  you  observe  in  regard  to  the  time  of  these 
three  facts?  Ans.  "Is  baptized"  is  in  time  past, 
"believeth''  is  in  time  present,  and  ''  shall  be  saved," 
in  time  future,  and  baptism  in  the  order  of  time  is 
placed  jQrst  by  the  Lord  himself;  because  it  always 
had  been  administered  in  infancy.  He  does  not  here 
describe  the  proper  subject  of  baptism,  but  the  proper 
subject  of  salvation.  It  is  an  unfounded  and  incon- 
siderate assumption,  that  these  words  describe  the 
subjects  of  baptism,  [d)  The  last  clause,  "  But  he 
that  believeth  not,  shall  be  damned,"  forbids  bap- 
tism to  no  one,  but  describes  the  qualification  for 
damnation — unbelief  And  by  it  the  unbeliever 
shall  be  damned,  whether  baptized  or  not.  Even 
the  reputed  potency  of  immersion  cannot  save  him. 
Then  they  are  rebelling  against  Christ  who  enact 
their  own  mistakes  and  thoughtless  blunders  into 
laws  to  govern  him  and  his  church.     The  subjects 


EVILS    or    DR.    HOWELL.  153 

of  baptism  were  described  long  before  Christ  sent 
his  disciples  into  all  the  world ;  and  he  chose  to 
make  no  change  in  the  ancient  law  on  this  subject. 
He  simply  gave  baptism  in  charge  to  them,  without 
defining  the  qualifications,  as  thej  had  already  been 
baptizing  under  his  direction  by  the  rules  that  had 
always  regulated  the  ordinance.  The  ancient  rules 
provide  that  all  shall  be  baptized  who  come  into  the 
visible  church,  whether  they  be  infants,  unbelievers 
who  profess  faith,  or  true  believers,  who  from  the 
heart  abjure  sin  and  Satan.  Accordingly,  we  find 
that  the  adult  women  and  their  infant  children,  who 
came  into  the  house  of  Jacob  after  the  slaughter  of 
the  Shechemites,  were  baptized  before  they  united  ia 
the  visible  worship  of  the  God  of  Abraham.* 

The  children  of  Israel,  adult  and  infimt,  were  every 
one  baptized  unto  Moses,  at  the  Red  Sea,  by  God 
himself,  with  rain  showered  upon  them,  on  dry 
ground,  between  two  walls  of  ice ;  and  it  was  in- 
tended as  an  example  for  our  imitation,  j-  When  the 
kingdom  of  God  was  formally  organized  at  Mount 
Sinai,  the  adults  all  solemnl}'  professed  obedience, 
saying,  "All  that  the  Lord  saith,  will  we  hear  and 
do,"  and  Moses,  by  God's  express  command,  bap- 
tized the  whole  nation,  infants  and  adults,  and  organ- 
ized them  into  the  visible  kingdom  of  the  Lord,  when 

*  Gen.  34  and  35.  f  Exod.  U:  22;  15:  8-  Ps.  11:  17. 
1  Cor.  10;  1,  6. 


154  EVILS    OF   DR.    HOWELL. 

the  Lord  came  down,  took  the  kingdom,  and  gave 
laws  to  the  people.* 

The  baptism  of  infants  and  adults  was  ever  after- 
wards practiced  in  the  church.  When  Jesus  con- 
versed with  Nicodemus,  he  declared  that  no  one 
could  enter  the  visible  kingdom  except  bj  baptism. 
And  repeatedly  he  declared  of  infants  that  they  were 
in  the  kingdom,  and,  of  course,  that  they  had  been 
baptized.  Accordingly,  when  the  apostles  went  out, 
in  obedience  to  their  Lord's  great  commission,  they 
baptized  the  households  of  Lydia  and  the  jailer.f  and 
many  others,  without  a  word  about  professing  faith, 
except  by  the  parents.  An  adult  ought  not  to  be 
baptized  without  faith  ;  because  he  cannot  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  God  without  faith ;  but  an  infant, 
being  born  spiritually  within  the  kingdom  in  personal 
innocency  without  faith,  ought  also  to  be  baptized 
without  faith,  to  place  him  visibly  wlie^e  he  is  really. 
If  he  die  in  infancy,  he  is  saved  because  .he  dies 
within  the  kingdom.  If  he  dies  out  of  the  kingdom, 
he  must  be  lost.  These  principles  are  so  plain  to 
every  reader  of  the  Bible,  that  it  is  needless  to  dwell 
upon  them. 

Then,  it  is  plain  that  the  Dippers  rebel  against 
Christ  in  refusing  to  recognize  as  members  of  his 
kingdom  those  whom  he  has  plainly  commanded  them 
to  receive  in  his  name.  If  we  consider  the  plainness 
with  which  this  command  is  given,  and  the  perspicu- 
*  Exod.  19.  f  Acts,  16. 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  155 

itj  with  which  are  recorded  so  many  examples  of  its 
fulfilment,  it  is  amazing  to  view  the  obstinate  preju- 
dice and  blind  fanaticism  with  which  it  is  opposed- 
How  terrible  is  the  rebellion  of  those  who  not  only 
break  this  command,  but  teach  others  to  condemn  it; 
and  foist  their  own  prejudices  into  the  place  of 
Christ's  laws !  They  shut  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
against  infants,  and  will  not  allow  them  a  place  in  it, 
either  visibly  or  spiritually,  and  when,  by  bare  shame, 
they  are  forced  to  admit  that  those  dying  in  infancy- 
are  saved,  still  they  invent  for  it  schemes  of  their 
own  by  which  infants  are  represented  as  saved  by 
grace,  quite  out  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  placed 
among  the  redeemed,  while  they  are  out  of  the  king- 
dom of  God  !  This  awkward  and  foolish  philosophy 
of  their  own  they  place  before  the  people  as  the 
teaching  of  divine  wisdom ;  and  thus  with  "  their 
puerilities,"  they  scandalize  Christ  and  his  gospel. 
They  are  the  "  rebels." 

2.  "  Infant  baptism  offers  an  indignity  to  the  au- 
thority of  Christ  by  dispensing  with  the  appointed 
profession  of  faith  as  a  condition  of  baptism." 

This  is  a  simple  begging  of  the  question  at  issue. 
Who  "  appointed  "  a  profession  of  faith  as  a  "  con- 
dition of  baptism"  ?  Our  author  gives  us  no  au- 
thority but  his  own.  In  vain  we  look  for  it  in  the 
apostolic  commission.  Inspired  examples  do  not 
sustain  the  assumption.  The  Shechemitish  infants 
in  the  house  of  Jacob  made  no  profession  of  faith 


156  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

when  tliey  were  made  clean  to  appear  before  God  at 
Bethel.  The  infants  in  the  arms  of  their  parents 
at  the  Red  Sea,  whom  God,  for  an  example  to  us, 
baptized  unto  Moses,  made  no  such  profession.  The 
infants  at  Mount  Sinai  whom  Moses  by  baptism  sanc- 
tified, organized  with  their  parents  into  the  visible 
kingdom  of  God,  made  no  such  profession.  Again, 
and  again,  they  stood  before  the  Lord  to  enter  into 
covenant  with  Him,  to  obey  Him  and  to  be  His  people. 
All  the  men  of  Israel  stood  with  their  captains,  elders, 
and  officers,  theiv  little  oJies,  wives,  and  strangers,  from 
the  hewer  of  wood  to  the  drawer  of  water — they  all, 
great  and  small,  entered  into  covenant  with  the  Lord 
and  were  baptized  by  sprinkling  with  water  as  well 
as  blood/*  without  one  word  of  profession  from  the 
infants. 

Lydia's  and  the  jailer's  households  made  no  pro- 
fession of  faith,  when  they  were  baptized  with  their 
parents  by  the  commissioned  apostles.j- 

Then  go  your  way  with  your  "  appointed  condition 
of  baptism,"  till  you  learn  to  talk  as  the  Bible  does. 
You  "  appoint"  your  own  rules ;  and  then  brand 
with  rebellion  against  Christ  those  who  refuse  to 
bow  to  your  dictation.  Bo  you  mean  to  usurp  his 
throne  ?  Beware,  mortal,  beware  !  Bow  to  His 
rule,  and  give  your  folly  to  the  winds. 

3.  "  It  also  perpetuates  the  change  of  form,  and 
thus  wholly  abolishes  baptism  itself.     This  [immer- 

*  Deut.  29 :  10,  11.  Heb.  9:19.  f  Acts,  16. 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  157 

bIod]  is  the  form  of  Christiau  baptism.  It  is  the 
invariable  form.  Baptism  is  but  a  form.  The 
form  is  the  thing.  Take  away  the  form  and  nothing 
is  left.     Destro}^  the  form  and  you  destroy  baptism." 

In  all  these  variations  of  the  very  same  idea,  it  is 
made  sufficiently  plain  that  Dippers  do  not  believe, 
that  there  is  an}^  sense,  meaning,  or  design,  in  im- 
mersion. It  is  nothing — absolutely  nothing,  but 
'■' form''^  Take  ''  form"'  away,  they  say,  and  no- 
thing at  all  remains.  Then  plainly  God  never 
appointed  it ;  for  there  is  wisdom,  signification, 
illustration, — there  is  sense  and  there  is  mean- 
ing— there  is  intention  and  design.  There  is  light, 
life,  power,  to  stir  the  soul — in  all  of  God's  ordi- 
nances. Immersion  is  a  senseless,  lifeless  thing — 
nothing  '•'  but  form."  It  is  a  body  without  a  soul. 
It  contains  no  renunciation  of  Satan,  no  obligation 
of  obedience  to  Christ,  no  death  to  sin,  no  burial 
of  the  old  man,  no  resurrection  to  new  life,  no  birth 
into  the  visible  kingdom.  "  The  form  is  the  thing.. 
Take  away  the  form  and  nothing  is  left."  We  al- 
ways knew  this  was  the  view  of  the  Dippers  ;  but  we:- 
had  not  expected  yet  to  find  so  bold  an  avowal  of  it.. 
They  have  been  a  little  reserved  on  this  point  here- 
tofore. But  Dr.  H.  has  boldness  for  anything.  If 
his  boldness  were  placed  under  the  restraints  of 
Christian  humility,  he  might  be  a  noble  specimen 
of  humanity. 

Well,  the  Dippers  may  continue  their  soulless, 
14 


158  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

senseless  "  form,"  but  we  shall  still  adhere  to  the 
Scriptural  sprinkling  of  clean  water,  which,  with  life, 
meaning  and  stirring  power,  speaks  so  beautifully  of 
the  cleansing  blood  that  sprinkles  our  hearts  from 
an  evil  conscience.  Dippers  may  walk  the  banks  of 
Jordan  and  stare  at  their  own  image  in  the  water  ; 
but  our  eyes  shall  be  turned  to  the  Hermon  of  glory, 
whence  comes  the  spirit  of  life  like  the  refreshing 
dews  of  heaven.  And  it  is  set  down  as  an  evil  for 
which  infant  baptism  is  to  answer,  that  it  excludes  a 
senseless  form,  that  has  nothing  at  all  in  it !  This 
is  a  praise  instead  of  a  fault. 

Our  author  further  says  : 

"  To  immerse  infants  would  be,  to  say  the  least, 
very  inconvenient,  and  not  always,  perhaps,  entirely 
safe." 

Yes,  everybody  knows  that ;  and  it  is  an  un- 
answerable argument  against  immersion.  The  God 
of  mercy  never  did  appoint  as  an  ordinance  of  re- 
ligion a  senseless  form,  that  would  endanger  the 
life  of  those  that  are  by  it  to  have  a  visible  entrance 
into  His  kingdom.  And  Dippers,  for  pure  love  of  a 
mere  form,  without  sense  or  design,  will  exclude 
from  the  kingdom  of  Grod  those  who  belong  to  it  by 
the  solemn  declaration  of  Christ !  They  know  that 
if  they  admit  them  to  be  in  the  covenant  of  grace, 
they  must  baptize  them ;  because  that  "  covenant 
has  baptism  annexed  "  They  know  that  if  infants  be 
in  the  kingdom  of  God,  they  must  be  baptized ; 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  159 

because  tliey  cannot  visibl}-  enter  it  except  they  be 
"  born  of  water."  So,  for  the  sake  of  immersion,  a 
mere  form^  they  dispense  with  baptism  altogether, 
and  exclude  infants  from  the  covenant  of  grace  and 
the  kingdom  of  God.  Immersion  is  evil,  and  only 
evil,  and  that  continually.  What  a  pity  that  God's 
people  should  cling  to  such  an  evil !  a  dead/o/-;?i — 
an  invention  for  exclusiveness. 

4.  "  Infant  baptism  prevents  the  obedience  to 
Christ  of  believers." 

And  how,  pray,  does  it  do  that  ?  Why,  they  re- 
fuse to  desecrate  baptism  with  a  mere  form  desti- 
tute alike  of  sense  and  design.  Where  has  Christ 
required  believers  or  anybody  else  to  practice  im- 
mersion, or  any  other  senseless yb/v?^  ? 

With  the  exception  of  the  usual  flings,  jibes,  and 
sneers,  the  foregoing  items  include  the  whole  matter 
of  this  chapter. 


CHAPTER    XI. 

"infant  baptism  13  AN  EVIL;  BECAUSE  OF  THE  CONNECTION 
IT  ASSUMES  WITH  THE  MORAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  TRAINING  OF 
CHILDEEN." 

After  a  careful  study  of  this  chapter  we  are  un- 
able to  see  any  definite  object  which  the  author 
would  have  placed  before  his  mind.  There  is  no 
show  of  argument.  He  seems  to  us  to  have  turned 
his  pen  loose,  and  rattled  along  at  random,  caring 
nothing  for  what  he  said.  Meagre  as  it  is,  we  must 
take  it.  It  is  the  best  they  can  give,  all  that  we  can 
get. 

1.  We  have  a  dish  of  Baltimore  statistics,  pur- 
porting to  show  the  relative  numbers  of  conver- 
sions in  Sunday  Schools  conducted  by  the  several 
churches  in  that  city,  in  which  the  Dippers  claim 
the  banner,  of  course.  This  argument  (pardon  the 
abuse  of  the  word)  is  an  attempt  to  settle  a  doc- 
trinal question  by  statistics,  got  up  by  a  party  for 
their  own  jDurposes,  in  a  single  city  !  It  leaves  the 
Bible  out  of  the  question ;  and,  when  reduced  to 
logical  form,  runs  thus  : 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  161 

Whatever  is  done  iu  Baltimore  is  authoritative 
for  Christendom, 

But  in  Baltimore  the  Dippers  excelled  all  others  ; 
Therefore  infant  baptism  is  a  nullity  !     Bravo  ! 

2.  In  the  baptism  of  children,  so  far  as  we  know, 
Christian  parents  publicly  declare  their  purpose  of 
training  up  their  "  children  in  the  nurture  and  ad- 
monition of  the  Lord."  This  our  author  thinks  is 
extremely  frivolous.  He  says,  '-  And  what  do  they 
vow  ?  Why,  that  they  will  really  do  what  God 
Almighty  has  commanded  them  to  do  !"  He  then 
proceeds  to  sneer  at  the  idea,  that  Christians  will 
vow  to  fulfil  their  obligations.  What  does  he 
mean  ?  Men  of  God  in  ail  ages  have  vowed.  What 
would  he  have  us  to  vow  %  If  we  must  not  vow  to 
do  our  dut}',  we  must  either  vow  to  do  wrong,  or  not 
vow  at  all.  Paul  had  a  vow  upon  him  at  Cenchrea. 
Did  he  vow  to  do  something  wrong,  or  to  do  his 
duty  %     The  Dippers  may  answer  that. 

3.  Finally,  our  author  says,  "  Infant  baptism 
leads,  in  moral  and  religious  training,  directly  into 
deception  regarding  the  way  of  salvation.  Other 
sinners  may  require  to  be  born  again ;  but  these 
have  been  purified  by  baptism.  They  are  not  ex- 
horted to  personal  religion ;  but  warned  against  per- 
sonal apostasy ;"  with  a  great  deal  of  the  same  kind. 

He  shall  answer  this  slander  himself.  On  page 
140  he  contradicts  every  word  of  this  foul  Billings- 
gate.    He  there  says : 

14* 


163  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

*•  They  [Pedo-baptists]  preach  to  all  alike,  and 
boldly  declare  to  sinners  of  every  class,  that  if  they 
arc  saved  at  all,  it  must  be  alone  by  the  grace  of 
Grockr  in  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,  whom  they  can  ap- 
proach only  as  penitent  believers^  and  whose  Spirit 
must  renew  and  sanctify  their  hearts^ 

There  is  Dr.  Howell  versus  Dr.  Howell ;  and  he 
may  settle  the  quarrel  he  has  got  up  with  himself, 
as  best  he  can. 


jDHAPTEE    XII. 


"INFANT  BAPTISM  IS  AN  EVIL;  BECAL'SE  IT  IS  THE  GRAND 
FOUNDATION  UPON  WHICH  RESTS  THE  UNION  OF  CnUECH  AND 
STATE. " 

This  chapter  is  really  the  poorest  thing  purport- 
ing to  be  an  argument  that  we  ever  have  read.  It 
consists  merely  of  quotations  from  history,  with 
broad  and  sweeping  assertions.  We  must  give  a 
few  examples  to  show  the  public  what  sort  of  attack 
satisfies  our  opponents : 

1.  The  first  position  to  prove  that  infant  baptism 
"  is  the  grand  foundation  upon  which  rests  the  union 
of  Church  and  State,  is  the  fact  that  all  State 
churches  have  practiced  infant  baptism. 

Every  one  can  see  at  a  glance,  that  it  would 
be  just  as  logical  to  conclude  that  infant  baptism 
is  the  grand  instrumentality  for  keeping  every 
man's  head  on  his  shoulders ;  for  every  individual 
who  was  ever  known  to  practice  that  ordinance 
did  have  a  head.  It  is  but  a  few  years  since  the 
Dippers  warned  the  people,  that  the  Bible  Society 
would  unite   Church  and  State.     Then   came    the 


164  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

work  of  Sunday  Schools,  and  they  were  almost  con-, 
vulsed  with  fear  for  the  liberties  of  the  country. 
Then  came  Education  and  Missionary  Societies, 
when  the  Dippers  grew  frantic,  and  declaimed  with 
vehemence  against  the  dangerous  institutions.  But 
when  Temperance  began  to  close  the  doggeries, 
one  could  not  repress  sympathy  on 'hearing  their 
doleful  lamentations.  Liberty  was  gone  !  Church 
and  State  almost  united ;  and  the  earnest  creatures 
really  seemed  to  believe  it !  But  finding  themselves 
unable  to  stay  the  flood  of  light  and  liberty,  and 
having  excommunicated  many  of  their  best  members 
for  uniting  in  these  noble  institutions,  they  at  last 
fell  in,  and  went  quietly  to  work  with  others ;  and 
seem  already  to  have  forgotten  their  old  croaking. 
Some  State  churches  practice  dipping.  Is  dipping, 
then,  the  "  grand  foundation  upon  which  rests  the 
union  of  Church  and  State"  ?  • 

Again,  "  He  who  defends  infant  baptism,  defends 
the  union  of  Church  and  State.  Destroy  infant 
baptism  and  you  destroy  the  union  of  Church  and 
State." 

We  are  opposed  to  the  establishment  of  any 
Church  by  State  authority  or  legislation.  But  we 
ardently  hope  to  see  the  State  and  Church  in  a 
glorious  "  union"  governed  by  the  laws  of  Christ, 
whose  kingdom  shall  so  fill  the  earth  as  that  the 
State  will  be  last  in  the  blessed  union. 

To  make  the  Church  dependent  on  the  State,  or 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  165 

the  State  dependent  on  the  Church  is  wicked ;  but 
to  unite  these  two  institutions  of  God  under  the  reign 
of  Great  Immanuel,  will  be  the  consummation  of 
the  latter-day  glory.  When  that  glory  comes,  ac- 
cording to  Dr.  Howell's  own  showing,  infant  bapti.sm 
must  everywhere  prevail.  If  he  were  as  much  op- 
posed to  State  establishments  as  to  the  blessed 
'•  union"  of  the  two  into  one  happy  organization,  ap- 
plying no  laws  but  Christ's,  he  would  be  a  pretty 
orthodox  American. 

That  happy  "  union"  will  come  in  spite  of  Dip- 
pers and  immersion,  and  then  all  the  children  will 
grow  up  in  the  church,  and  they  will  never  learn 
anything  else  but  to  be  in  the  church  ;  because  Satan 
shall  be  bound,  and  the  Dippers  will  be  converted 
to  sprinkling  clean  water  just  as  sure  as  Ezekiel's 
prophecy  is  the  truth  of  God.  Then  there  will  be 
none  to  molest  or  destroy  in  all  the  mountain  of  the 
Lord. 

Why,  it  would  be  no  worse  in  me  to  try  to  prove 
that  famine  is  caused  by  the  Dippers  in  abusing  the 
water  ;  because  famines  have  more  or  less  prevailed 
in  "  every  country"  where  Dippers  are  found  !  This 
is  really  all  we  find  in  the  twelfth  chapter.  Wherever 
he  finds  State  establishments,  he  finds  infant  bap- 
tism ;  therefore,  infant  baptism  produces  State  es- 
tablishments. The  sun  also  shines  wherever  it  is 
practiced  ;  is  it  the  cause  of  sunshine  ? 


CHAPTEE  XIII. 

"  INFANT  BAPTISM  IS  AN  EVIL ;    BECAUSE  IT   LEADS  TO  RELIGIOXTg 
PERSECUTIONS." 

This  is  a  long  chapter ;  but  the  whole  argument 
is  comprehended  in  one  proposition.  Infant  baptism 
is  made  responsible  for  every  evil  that  existed  in  all 
the  countries  where  it  existed.  A  more  vicious 
mode  of  reasoning  never  was  adopted.  Every  one 
at  all  acquainted  with  the  history  of  persecution, 
knows  that  it  alwa^^s  sprung  out  of  contracted  bigotry 
entirely  independent  of  any  forms  of  baptism.  Nor 
are  the  martyrs  free  from  blame.  They  were  often 
as  bigoted  as  their  persecutors ;  and  would  have  per- 
secuted,  if  they  had  possessed  the  requisite  power. 
They  often  coveted  persecution  as  a  means  of  enrol- 
ling their  names  among  the  martyrs.  By  many,  to 
be  persecuted  and  slain  for  their  religion,  was  deemed 
to  be  the  highest  attainment  in  Christian  perfection. 
Others  thought  they  verily  did  God  service  in  ex- 
terminating heretics  from  the  earth.  Both  were  in 
error.     Greater  meekness  in  the  persecuted  would 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  167 

often  have  allayed  the  fury  of  the  persecutors,  and 
more  forbearance  from  those  in  power  would  some- 
times have  won  over  to  unity  those  who  were  put  to 
death  for  their  obstinacy. 

"  The  first  argument "  adduced  in  the  chapter  be- 
fore us,  to  prove  that  "  infant  baptism  leads  to  re- 
ligious persecutions,"  is  in  these  words  :  "  It  brings 
into  the  church  the  whole  population  of  the  country 
where  it  prevails.  All  are  baptized  and  admitted  to 
membership  ;"  and  of  course  will  just  go  to  killing 
one  another  ! 

On  this  puerile  jibe,  I  remark  : 

1.  It  is  not  true  in  point  of  fact.  If  we  begin 
with  the  first  mention  of  the  ordinance,  and  follow 
the  history  of  the  church  down  to  the  present  day, 
we  shall  not  be  able  in  a  single  country,  even  where 
it  has  prevailed,  to  find  "  the  v/hole  population  "  in 
the  church.  It  is  astounding  that  any  man  should 
venture  on  such  an  assertion. 

2.  If  the  assertion  were  true,  it  is  impossible  to 
conceive  what  would  induce  the  people  to  persecute 
one  another  on  account  of  a  rite  in  which  they  are  all 
agreed.  There  is  nothing  to  persecute  for.  There 
must  of  necessity  be  a  difference  before  persecution 
can  exist. 

3.  In  the  very  terms  of  this  proposition  there  is  a 
contradiction  as  palpable  as  if  he  had  said,  '•  Where 
the  people  are  all  united,  and  agree  in  the  same  views, 
there  must  of  necessity  be  division,  strife  and  murder." 


1G8  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

4.  In  support  of  this  argument  our  author  refers 
to  the  persecutions  in  the  days  of  Constantine.  But 
our  author  and  every  one  else  must  know  that  infant 
baptism  had  not  the  remotest  connection  with  the 
persecutions  of  those  times.  He  himself  admits  that 
"  infant  baptism  became  general  "  at  that  time,  and 
of  course  it  could  not  result  in  persecution.  Be- 
sides, it  is  not  once  mentioned  as  a  cause  of  persecu- 
tion. The  persecutions  of  these  and  subsequent 
times  were  the  fruit  of  attempts  to  bring  men  to 
miiformity  of  views,  not  on  the  subject  of  inf^mt 
baptism  in  which  they  were  "  generally  agreed  ;"  but 
on  the  subject  of  the  power  of  the  emperor  and  the 
bishops  in  ecclesiastical  matters.  The  men  of  faith 
appealed  to  the  "Word  of  God  as  the  sole  authority  in 
determining  what  duties  and  what  homage  man  is  to 
render  to  God.  The  party  possessing  pagdn  sympa- 
thies were  not  brought  into  the  church  by  infant 
baptism,  but  by  the  victory  of  Constantine  over 
Licinius.  They  claimed  for  the  emperor  and  the 
priesthood  the  power  of  enacting  by  statutory  laws, 
what  should  be  the  faith,  the  worship  of  the  people. 
Those  who  loved  the  Word  of  God  would  not,  could 
not^  yield  such  power  to  man.  It  gives  the  creature 
preference  to  the  Creator.  It  is  idolatry.  These 
principles  have  formed  the  ground- work  of  all  the 
persecutions  waged  by  one  nominally  Christian  party 
against  another.  The  party  in  power  have  ever 
claimed  the  authority  to  direct  by  law  the  faith,  duty 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  1G9 

and  worship,  wliicli  the  other  party  are  to  yield  to 
God.  Infant  baptism  has  caused  no  persecutions, 
has  contributed  to  the  formation  of  no  such  opinions, 
and  nothing  can  be  more  superstitious  than  to 
ascribe  the  persecuting  spirit  in  the  man  to  the 
sprinkling  of  a  few  drops  of  water  into  the  face  of 
the  babe.  It  is  as  weak  as  it  would  be  in  me  to 
ascribe  the  persecuting  spirit  to  immersion,  which 
began  to  spread  considerably  about  the  time  to 
which  Dr.  H.  refers.  The  doctrines  of  the  trinity, 
universalism,  praying  to  the  saints,  &c  ,  &c.,  were 
also  prevailing  to  some  considerable  extent  at  the 
same  time.  Why  not  refer  persecution  to  them,  or 
some  of  them,  as  fairly  as  to  infant  baptism  ? 
Co-existende  is  not  causation. 

In  the  next  place  our  author  raises  a  mournful 
wail  over  the  poor  Dippers,  who  "  were  hunted  down 
and  destroyed  like  wild  beasts."  This  is  but  too 
true  ;  in  a  different  sense,  however,  from  that  here 
presented.  The  Dippers  in  the  sixteenth  century, 
to  which  he  refers,  were  so  much  like  "  wild  beasts," 
that  it  became  necessary  to  destroy  them  to  j>reveut 
the  destruction  of  civil  society. 

They  then,  as  in  more  modern  times,  despised  the 
written  Word  of  God,  and  claimed  to  have  immediate 
inspiration  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  Some  of  them  then,  as 
recently,  actually  '•  burnt  the  New  Testament,"  alleg- 
ing that  "  The  letter  killeth,  but  the  spirit  giveth  life." 
Tens  of  thousands  are  now  living  who  have  heard 
15 


170  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

them  declare  how  God  spoke  audibly  to  them  on 
various  subjects,  and  how  He  called  them  to  preach 
the  Gospel.  Three  hundred  3'ears  ago  they  used  the 
very  words  which  are  yet  in  the  mouths  of  their 
brethren.  They  constantly  proclaimed  as  a  truth 
unknown  to  Pedo-baptists,  that  there  is  "  one  bap- 
tism," and  "but  one."  Then  they  cried  to  Pedo- 
baptists,  "  AYoe,  woe,  woe  !"  as  one  of  their  number, 
stripped  naked,  did  in  New  England,  in  the  public 
congregation  on  Sunday,  in  the  days  of  the  persecu- 
tion of  Dippers  in  the  "  colonies."  She — for  it  was  a 
woman  !  was  smartly  persecuted  with  rods  on  her 
bare  back  for  her  Christian  delicacy !  As  now,  so 
then,  they  proclaimed  "  the  baptism  of  adult  be- 
lievers only."  "  Infant  baptism,"  they  said,  "  is  a 
horrible  abomination,  a  flagrant  impiety,  invented 
by  the  wicked  spirit,  and  by  Nicholas  IT.,  Pope  of 
Home."  The  Dippers  still  say  it  is  a  popish  inven- 
tion, "  defended  by  Origen "  nearly  three  hundred 
years  before  the  first  pope  was  seated  in  the  chair  ! 
They  then,  as  now,  exhorted  everybody  that  had 
been  baptized  in  infancy  to  come  forward  and  "  re- 
ceive at  their  hands  the  true  baptism"  [immersion]. 
They  said.  "  "We  must  form  a  church  composed  of 
saints  only,"  infants  not  being  "  saints."  I  have 
thus,  briefly,  in  their  own  words,  given  their  distin- 
guishing views,  that  all  may  know  that  they  agree 
with  Dippers  of  this  generation  and  this  country. 
They  of  our  day  sometimes  disown  their  brethren  of 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  171 

tlie  sixteenth  century,  when  their  deeds  are  brought 
to  light.  In  this  case  it  will  be  hard  to  escape ;  for 
Dr.  H.  not  only  endorses  the  company,  but  names 
and  approves  several  prominent  individuals  of  them, 
viz. :  Mantz,  Grebel,  Blourock,  Koubli,  Brodtlein, 
Herjer,  &c. 

Let  us  now  set  Dr.  H.  right  in  a  few  particulars, 
and  then  we  shall  be  ready  to  inquire  into  the  per- 
secutions which  these  "  poor  creatures  endured." 

1,  Dr.  H.  represents  the  Dippers  as  saying  to  the 
assembled  people,  "  Give  us  the  Word  of  God,  and 
not  the  word  of  Zuingle.  Do  you  keep  the  doctrines 
of  Zuingle  ;  as  for  us,  we  will  keep  the  Word  of  God." 
These,  truly,  are  the  words  of  the  Dippers ;  but  they 
are  here  made  to  mean  a  very  different  thing  from  that 
which  they  intended.  By  "  the  AVord  of  God"  they 
meant  not  the  Bible,  which  '•  they  burnt ;"  but  the 
"  inward  revelation "  received  by  them  from  the 
Holy  Spirit.     Zuingle's  was  the  written  word. 

2.  He  represents  the  Dippers  as  reminding  the 
reformers  of  their  own  doctrines  about  the  purity  of 
the  church,  when  Zuingle  pettishly  answered,  '•  It 
is  impossible  to  make  heaven  on  earth.  Christ  has 
taught  us  to  let  the  tares  grow  among  the  wheat." 
These  words  of  Zuingle  were  in  answer  to  the  words 
of  Grebel,  "  Let  us  found  a  church  in  which  there 
shall  be  no  svi^  Grebel  was  one  of  the  Dippers 
who  despised  the  written  word,  and  boasted  of  the 
inward  word,  delivered  by  the  spirit ;  and  so  far  was 


172  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

lie  deceived,  as  to  suppose  that  from  the  moment  of 
immersion,  he  and  his  brethren  lived  "  without  sin." 
That  is  the  thing  to  which  Zuingle  "  pettishly 
answered,"  as  Dr.  H.  would  have  it. 

3.  Dr.  H.  laments  dolefully  over  "  fourteen  men 
and  seven  women  who  were  arrested "  at  Zurich, 
"  and  imprisoned  on  an  allowance  of  bread  and  water 
in  the  heretics'  tower.  After  a  fortnight's  confine- 
ment, by  removing  some  planks  in  the  floor,  they 
managed  to  effect  their  escape  during  the  night.  But 
Dr.  H.  omits  to  tell  his  readers  how  these  brethren 
of  his  lied  to  the  people,  saying,  "  An  angel  had 
opened  the  prison  and  led  them  forth"  ! 

Come  Dr.,  you  claim  these  men  as  our  [your] 
"  bretliren,"  and  you  must  tell  the  ''  whole  truth." 

4.  Dr.  H.  says  :  ''  The  council  [of  Zurich]  over- 
come in  argument,  and  put  to  shame  by  truth,  now 
resorted  to  other  measures.  They  condemned  Mantz 
to  be  drowned,  and  the  sentence  was  immediately 
executed.  Blourock  was  scourged  with  rods,  and 
banished  by  the  ^nous  Froteslants.'^'' 

It  is  true  that  these  two  Dippers  were  treated  as 
here  described  ;  but  the  cause  of  it  was  very  different 
from  that  here  assigned.  These  "  brethren  "  of  Dr. 
Howell,  "  maintaining,  that  the  Lord  had  exhorted 
them  to  become  like  little  children — began  to  clap 
their  hands  [at  the  close  of  Zuingle's  discourse]  and 
skip  about  in  the  streets,  to  dance  in  a  ring,  sit  on 
the    ground,  and    tumble  each  other  about.      Some 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  173 

burnt  the  New  Testament — others  falling  into  con- 
vulsions, pretended  to  have  revelations  from  the 
Holy  Ghost."  They  proclaimed  death  and  destruc- 
tion to  their  Pedo-baptist  neighbors,  frightened  the 
ignorant,  and  disturbed  continually  the  public  peace. 
One  Thomas  Schucker,  a  member  of  the  fraternity, 
put  some  gall  into  a  bladder,  and  proclaimed  to  his 
brother  Leonard,  "  Thus  bitter  is  the  death  thou  art 
to'  suffer."  He  then  in  a  sepulchral  voice  said, 
"  Brother  Leonard  kneel  down."  Leonard  knelt. 
Then,  "Brother  Leonard,  arise."  Leonard  stood 
up.  The  whole  company  were  now  at  the  highest 
pitch  of  excitement.  But  Thomas  assured  them 
that  "  nothing  will  happen  but  the  will  of  the  Father," 
He  commanded  his  brother  again  to  kneel  down, 
and  while  his  brother  was  kneeliog  before  him,  he 
caught  up  a  sword,  and  with  one  violent  blow  severed 
his  head  from  his  body,  exclaiming :  "  Now  the  will 
of  the  Father  is  accomplished."  The  Dippers 
allowed  him  to  escape,  but  justice  overtook  him  at 
St.  Gall.  They  kept  society  in  a  ferment  with  their 
disorderly  conduct,  and  by  discarding  the  Bible,  and 
proclaiming  their  own  inspiration,  proclaiming  also 
the  "  day  of  the  Lord,"  and  the  judgment  of  all  who 
would  not  be  immersed.  The  civil  authorities  arrested 
them.  But  "  when  they  were  summoned  before  the 
tribunals,  they  declared  they  did  not  recognize  tJie 
civil  authority.''''  As  Mantz,  one  of  the  leaders,  was 
particularly  noisy  about  immersion,  they  sentenced 
15* 


174  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

him  "  to  be  drowned."  Blouroek,  the  other  leader, 
was  not  so  forward  as  Mantz,  and  he  was  scourged 
with  rods. 

But  as  the  Dippers  raise  a  wail  so  sorrowful,  loud 
and  long  for  their  poor,  persecuted  brethren,  let  us 
inquire  still  further  into  this  matter.  They  pro- 
claimed "  infant  baptism  a  horrible  abomination," 
and  said,  ''  We  must  form  a  church  composed  of 
saints  only."  One  of  them,  George  Jacob,  said  to 
the  people,  "  I  am  the  door.  Whosoever  entereth  by 
me  shall  find  pasture.  I  am  the  good  shepherd. 
My  body  I  give  to  the  prison  ;  my  life  I  give  to  the 
sword,  the  stake,  or  the  wheel.  I  am  the  beginning 
of  the  baptism  and  the  bread  of  the  Lord."  They 
proclaimed  to  their  followers  :  "  We  must  fall  upon 
every  ungodly  practice,  and  overthrow  them  all  in  a 
day."  They  forthwith  entered  the  churches,  pillaged 
them,  and  can'ied  away  what  they  chose,  and  broke 
or  burnt  the  rest.  God,  they  said,  required  them  to 
do  all  this.  They  everywhere  declared  that  they 
were  taught  inwardly  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  had 
no  need  of  the  written  Word. 

Dr.  Howell  says,  that  the  Reformers  themselves 
at  first  hesitated,  and  so  they  did,  like  wise  men, 
until  they  examined  these  extraordinary  pretensions. 
As  soon,  however,  as  they  found  by  the  written  Word 
of  God,  that  these  besotted  bigots  were  the  dupes 
of  their  own  fanaticism,  they  hesitated  no  longer. 
On  this  occasion  Melancthon  said,  ''  On  the  one  hand, 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  175 

let  US  beware  of  quencliing  the  spirit  of  God,  and  on 
the  other,  of  being  led  away  bj  the  spirit  of  Satan." 
While  the  Dippers  were  carrying  destruction  all 
around,  Luther  said,  in  reference  to  them,  "  I  will 
preach,  discuss  and  write  ;  but  I  will  constrain  none  ; 
for  faith  is  a  voluntary  act."  Yet  Dr.  Howell  rep- 
resents these  Dippers  as  the  fathers  of  religious 
liberty,  and  says  they  were  persecuted  by  Luther 
and  Melancthon  ! 

Because  the  reformers  practiced  infant  baptism 
according  to  the  convictions  they  received  from  the 
written  Word  of  God,  the  Dippers  accused  them  of 
"  forming  churches  that  were  not  pure  and  holy." 
They  gave  way  to  all  the  intoxication  of  fanaticism, 
and  cried,  '•  Tlie  Spirit !  the  Spirit !  and  spoke  only 
of  an  internal  revelation  from  God,"  disregarding 
the  authority  of  "  the  written  Word."  They  de- 
clared themselves  authorized  by  God  himself  to 
destroy  all  who  were  opposed  to  tliem,  and  to  estab- 
lish a  pure  church  of  believers  only ;  and  they  got  up 
furious  mobs  to  destroy  both  Church  and  State. 
Some  of  the  civil  rulers  now  thought  of  punishing 
their  wickedness ;  but  Luther  said,  "  Let  them 
preach  what  they  please,  for  it  is  the  Word  of  God 
that  must  march  in  front  of  the  battle,  and  fight 
against  them."  The  Dippers  cared  nothing  for  the 
Word  of  God.  They  had  a  word  in  themselves, 
which  they  believed  to  be  far  more  authoritative 
than  the  Bible.     Nor  did  they  stop  with  mobs  and 


176  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

threats.  The}^  carried  fire  and  sword  over  tlie  land. 
Luther  then  said  to  the  civil  rulers :  "  If  you  do 
not  put  a  mad  dog  to  death,  you  will  perish,  and  all 
the  country  with  you."  This  is  what  Dr.  Howell 
calls  persecution !  He  would  be  willing  to  have 
these  fanatical  Dippers  to  have  killed  every  one  who 
would  not  submit  to  immersion.  They  did  butcher 
thousands;  but  he  is  not  satisfied  with  that,  but 
complains  that  they  were  persecuted,  because  they 
were  not  sufiered  to  devastate  the  whole  country. 
Here  are  the  words  of  the  Dippers  on  this  occasion : 
"  Like  Joshua,  we  must  put  all  the  Canaanites 
[Pedo-baptists]  to  death."  They  made  one  of  their 
number  king,  to  rule  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  and 
issued  a  proclamation,  of  which  the  following  is  a  sam- 
ple :  "  How  long  will  you  sleep  ?  Arise,  and  fight 
the  battle  of  the  Lord.  The  time  is  come.  On, 
on,  on  I  Draw,  draw,  draw  !  Heed  not  the  groans 
of  the  impious  ones  [Pedo-baptists].  They  will  im- 
plore you  like  children ;  but  be  pitiless.  Draw, 
draw,  draw!  The  fire  is  burning;  let  your  sword 
be  ever  warm  with  blood.  Draw,  draw,  draw  I" 
These,  reader,  are  the  words  of  these  poor,  meek, 
gentle  Dippers,  who  were  so  "  cruelly  persecuted " 
and  "liunted  down  and  destroyed  like  wild  beasts." 
The  Dippers  drove  furiously  onward.  Fire,  blood 
and  carnage  marked  their  path.  The  mild  and  pious 
elector,  Frederick,  desired  to  reclaim  these  deluded 
fanatics,  and  was   willing   to  make  concessions  to 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  177 

pacify  tbeir  wrath ;  but  nothing  would  do.  They 
had  a  revelation  from  God  by  the  Holy  Spirit  to 
destroy  the  Canaanites,  and  they  were  determined  to 
obey  the  call  of  God.  Even  on  the  day  of  battle, 
when  a  rainbow  appeared  over  them,  the  leaders 
assured  them  that  this  was  a  token  from  God  that 
victory  would  that  day  perch  on  their  standard. 
They  madly  persisted,  rejecting  every  overture,  till 
many  of  their  followers  were  slain,  the  leaders  be- 
headed, and  the  rest  routed  and  scattered.  After 
all  this,  it  is  no  wonder  if  civil  rulers  for  a  long  time 
watched  their  movements  with  suspicion,  and  even 
kept  them  under  wholesome  restraint.  These  were 
dark  da3's  for  humanity.  We  never  thought  of  hold- 
ing the  Dippers  of  the  present  day  responsible  for  all 
the  outrages  and  the  fanaticism  of  their  fathers  in 
these  dark  times.  But  if  Dr.  Howell  and  his  two 
publication  societies  become  the  apologists  of  these 
fanatics,  and  attempt  to  charge  on  infant  baptism  as 
persecution  the  reduction  of  these  lawless  murderers 
to  order  in  civil  society,  they  must  expect  to  be  ex- 
posed for  their  folly.  And  should  they  persist  in 
their  advocacy  of  these  disturbers  of  the  peace,  just 
because  they  practiced  immersion  and  opposed  infant 
baptism,  they  must  not  wonder  if  they  excite  the 
vigilance  of  those  in  this  free  country,  who  know  the 
price  of  liberty.  He  represents  the  Dippers  as  the 
fathers  of  American  Liberty !  when  all  the  country 
knows  that,  at  the  time  of  the  revolution,  the  Dip- 


178  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

pers  did  not  form  a  tithe  of  a  tithe  in  the  population ! 
They  the  fathers  of  American  liberty!  They,  in 
common  with  all  others,  love  to  enjoy  it.  Nor  had 
we  suspected  them  of  any  feelings  inimical  to  it ;  but 
a  few  such  chapters  as  this  would  bring  us  to  a  seri- 
ous pause.  We  had  not  supposed  that  one  man  in 
our  country  would  appear  as  the  advocate  of  the  ex- 
travagances or  the  persecutions  of  the  dark  times  that 
have  gone  before  Christianity  has  made  great  progress 
in  all  its  evangelical  denominations,  and  light  has  in- 
creased. These  advantages  have  resulted  from  the  la- 
bors of  no  single  denomination  ;  but  each  has  brought 
its  contribution.  How  contemptible  and  puerile,  then, 
for  one  to  come  forward  claiming  for  itself  all  the 
praise  of  the  ameliorated  condition  of  the  world ! 
It  is  unworthy  of  the  age  in  which  we  live !  It  is  a 
mournful  proof  that  the  Dippers  are  still  behind  the 
times.  May  God  grant  them  the  understanding  of 
His  written  Word,  as  well  as  the  inward  enlighten- 
ing of  His  Spirit,  and  the  proper  discernment  of  the 
signs  of  the  times  ! 


CHAPTEE  XIY. 

"IKFANT    BAPTISiT    IS   AX    EYIL ;    BECAUSE    IT    IS    CONTRARY 
TO   THE   PRINCIPLES   OF    CIVIL   AND   RELIGIOUS   FREEDOM." 

A  FEW  extracts  will  exhibit  the  whole  strength  of 
this  chapter  : 

"  Infoiit  baptism  is  the  first  step  in  the  process, 
which  soon  enslaves  the  mind,  and  throughout  after- 
life leads  captive  all  its  powers.  The  child,  without 
its  knowledge  or  consent,  has  been  subjected  to  the 
ordinance,  in  which  he  makes  a  profession  of  re- 
ligion.'' 

On  page  206  of  this  work  the  author  says :  "  In- 
fant baptism  offers  an  indignity  to  the  authority  of 
Christ,  by  dispensing  with  the  appointed  profession 
of  faith."  Here  he  says,  that  in  it  the  infant  "  makes 
a  profession  of  religion."  There  the  Doctor  is  again 
at  fiiult  with  himself;  and,  as  it  is  no  part  of  our 
busine-ss  to  reconcile  his  conflicting  statements,  we 
leave  this  work  to  some  leisure  hour  of  his  own 
study. 

But  what  is  that  terrible   "  process  "  of  which  in- 


180  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

fant  baptism  is  tlie  "  first  step  "  ?  Why,  it  is  tlie 
training  of  the  child  in  the  religious  views  of  the 
parent.  Dr.  H.  says,  "  Infant  baptism  places  men 
in  this  condition,"  where  they  are  subjected  to  be 
trained  in  the  religious  views  of  their  parents  !  This 
is  a  very  great  mistake ;  for  everybody  knows  that  it  is 
hy  hirtli  children  come  under  the  control  of  their 
parents.  If,  then,  the  Dippers  are  opposed  to  hav- 
ing children  under  the  control  of  their  parents,  they 
must  publish  a  book  against  our  being  born  of  our 
parents,  and  try  to  persuade  the  people  to  be  born 
of  some  one  else  than  parents,  or  not  to  be  born  at 
all !  If  parents  abuse  their  power,  and  enslave  the 
minds  of  their  children,  let  them^  and  not  bajJtism^ 
answer  for  it.  Facts  would  show  that  there  arc  more 
people  perfectly  free  who  were  baptized  in  infancy, 
than  who  were  immersed  in  adult  age. 

Again :  "  Infant  baptism  is  at  the  foundation  of 
the  slavery  of  the  nations  No  choice  is  left  to  the 
child." 

It  is  very  superstitious  to  suppose  that  baj^tism, 
administered  at  any  time  of  life,  will  take  away  the 
power  of  choice.  But  if  simple  baptism,  with  a  few 
drops  of  water  on  an  infant,  will  deprive  him  ever 
afterwards  of  the  power  of  choice,  one  might  fairly 
conclude  that  immersion  would  destroy  choice  and 
reason  both  in  an  adult ;  and  there  are  some  facts 
that  have  a  squinting  that  way. 

Still  again:  "  His  church  is  selected  for  him;  he 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  181 

is  bound  hand  and  foot  in  hopeless  slavery.*'  Yes, 
poor  fellow,  and  the  half  is  not  told  ;  for  he  has  no 
chance  of  choosing  the  family,  the  country,  or  the 
state,  in  which  he  is  to  be  born  and  reared.  If 
many  a  poor  child  were  permitted  to  choose  his  own 
parents,  many,  no  doubt,  would  be  born  in  different 
circumstances !  And  then  the  dear  little  creatures 
are  sent  to  what  school,  and  taught  what  branches, 
tlie  parent  pleases !  Ah,  Doctor,  this  is  a  terribly 
enslaved  world  ;  and  none  are  more  abject  than  those 
who  are  under  the  iron  dominion  of  prejudice,  and 
partyism,  and  bigotry.  They  lose  their  eyes  with 
their  liberty. 

A  fourth  time  :  '•  In  America,  the  very  atmosphere 
we  breathe  is  essentially  anti-Pedobaptistic,"  and 
that  infant  baptism  "  has  not  its  full  effect  among 
us,  is  attributable  mainly,  if  not  wholly,  to  the  Bap. 
tist  element  which  everywhere  so  strongly  pervades 
the  public  mind." 

What  puerile  bravado  !  Why,  a  single  denomina- 
tion of  Pedo  baptists — the  Methodists — far  outnum- 
bers them.  Their  influence  is  nearly  twice  as  great. 
Then,  the  other  Pedo-baptist  denominations  can 
outnumber  them,  perhaps,  twice  again;  and  yet  the 
'-  Baptist  element "  is  so  very  prevalent,  that  the  vital 
air  is  impregnated  with  so  strong  an  anti-Pedo-bap- 
tist  miasm  as  almost  to  suffocate  independence  of 
thought !  Such  vanity  and  egotism  must  soon  illus- 
trate the  principle  that  '^  pride  goeth  before  destruc- 
16 


182  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

tion,  and  a  hauglitj  spirit  before  a  fall."  Are  Dip- 
pers, in  such  conceited  boasts,  meditating  the  meas- 
ures of  former  times,  when  they  thought  to  awe  the 
world  into  acquiescence  in  their  infiillibility  under 
the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit !  Let  them  try 
their  old  game,  and  they  shall  soon  see  whether  they 
can  carry  by  force  what  their  arguments  fail  to 
achieve. 


CHAPTER  XY. 

"infant  baptism  is  an  evil;    because   it  enfeebles  the 

POWER   OF   the   church   TO   COMBAT   ERROR," 

This  chapter  is  another  long  one,  with  almost  no- 
thing in  it.  Some  assertions,  assumptions,  and 
charges  without  proof,  a  ramble  over  the  old  ground 
of  persecution,  and  a  braggart  peroration,  make  up 
the  chapter.  It  is  amazing  that  any  Christian  should 
turn  from  the  Bible  to  the  vicious  abuses  of  its  doc- 
trines among  men  of  corrupt  minds,  in  order  to  con- 
fute its  teachings.  The  simple  question  before  us  is, 
Does  the  Bible  authorize  infant  baptism  ?  If  bad 
men  practiced  the  baptism  of  their  infants,  the  same 
men  also  observed  the  Lord's  supper.  Nor  did  they 
abuse  infant  baptism  more  than  the  other  ordinance. 
But  their  abuse  of  the  one,  or  the  other  ordinance, 
forms  no  argument  against  either.  The  fact  merely 
proves  that  they  are  bad  men,  not  that  these  are  bad 
doctrines  or  bad  ordinances. 

Again :  If  persecution  waged  by  Pedo-baptists 
forms  an  argument  against  infant  baptism,  then  the 


184  EVILS    OF   DR.    HOWELL. 

torrents  of  blood  which  the  Dippers  of  the  sixteenth 
century  caused  to  flow,  must  furnish  a  very  deep,  dark, 
red  argument  against  immersion !  But  when  we  ar- 
gue against  immersion,  we  do  not  introduce  the  ig- 
norance, bigotry,  superstition,  and  blood-shed  of  its 
devotees  in  different  ages.  The  argument  would  be 
invalid.  We  never  appeal  to  these  facts  but  to  place 
the  Dippers  in  the  very  position  in  which  they  at- 
tempt to  place  us,  so  as  to  open  their  eyes  to  the  value 
of  their  own  argument.  If  we  must  answer  for  all 
tbe  bad  behavior  of  those  who  have  practiced  in- 
fant baptism,  then,  plainly  on  the  same  principle,  they 
must  answer  for  all  the  atrocious  wickedness  of  those 
who  have  practiced  immersion.  If  the  corrupt  Latin 
church  practiced  infant  baptism,  it  must  be  remem- 
bered that  the  corrupt  Greek  church  practiced  both 
infant  baptism  and  immersion.  So  the  Dippers,  on 
their  own  principles  of  argument,  are  held  to  a 
double  responsibility  for  atrocities  and  villanies  as 
deep  and  dark  as  hell  itself  They  must  see  that 
they  are  undermining  a  mountain,  and  the  sooner 
they  succeed  the  sooner  they  must  be  crushed  be- 
neath its  massive  rocks. 

Having  offered  these  remarks  on  the  general  prin- 
ciples of  this  chapter,  Ave  now  propose  very  briefly  to 
review  a  few  only  of  those  unworthy  jibes  in  which 
Dr.  Howell  is  so  prolific  : 

"Infant  baptism,  whenever  operating  without  re- 
straint,  inevitably  corrupts    the    communities   that 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  185 

practice  it."  To  this  bold  assertion  we  oppose  the 
pure  and  staid  morality,  intelligence,  and  virtue  of 
Scotland,  New  England,  and  Pedo -baptists  generally. 
We  declare  that  in  the  practice  of  infant  baptism  in 
this  free  country  we  have  felt  none  of  the  imagined 
*'  restraint"  of  the  self-conceited  Dippers ;  and  we 
are  ready  any  day  to  compare  moral  standing  with 
them  by  exhibiting  equal  numbers  of  families  on 
each  side  of  the  question  from  any  part  of  our  ex- 
tended country. 

Dr.  H.  says  that  at  the  time  of  the  reformation 
the  Dippers  "  were  found  in  every  place,  gallantly 
battling  in  the  cause."  No;  they  were  "  gallantly 
battling  "  for  their  own  infallibility  under  the  imme- 
diate inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  as  "  valiant- 
ly battling"  against  the  written  Word  of  God^  and 
the  civil  rights  of  their  opponents,  as  we  have  al- 
ready shown. 

Again :  "  The  reformation  has  proved  a  failure." 
Croakers  have  been  uttering  that  a  long  time  ;  but  in 
what  is  its  failure  ?  It  has  failed  to  establish  im- 
mersion, the  infallibility  of  the  Pope,  the  inspiration 
of  Dippers,  and  many  other  things  which  it  never 
undertook.  But  it  has  not  failed  to  diffuse  the  Bible, 
religion,  civilization,  science,  liberty,  and  literature, 
the  things  at  which  it  had  ever  aimed.  What  have 
the  Dippers  achieved  in  these  several  departments  ? 

Dr.  H.  represents  all  the  Pedo-baptists  as  yielding 
the  question  of  the  Scriptural  authority  of  infant 
16* 


186  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

baptism.  This,  we  suppose,  must  have  been  intended 
io  raise  the  horrors  of  those  of  his  own  party  who 
happen  to  live  in  corners  remote  from  the  light;  and 
be  no  doubt  hopes  that  being  of  his  own  party  they 
will  forgive  him  for  saying  in  the  former  part  of  his 
book,  that  they  all  appeal  to  the  Scriptures  in  sup- 
port of  this  doctrine. 

"  The  doctrine  of  hereditary  claims  to  the  cov- 
enant of  grace  is  an  appalling  abuse  among  Presby- 
terians and  Calvinists  generally."  So  says  Dr.  H. 
But  as  he  has  no  more  authority  to  assert  this  than 
bis  "  brethren"  of  the  sixteenth  century  had  to  as- 
sert their  own  infallibility,  and  as  we  have  as  much 
authority  to  deny  as  he  has  to  affirm^  a  simple  de- 
nial will  be  a  sufficient  reply  to  this  "  appalling"  as- 
sumption. 

These  are  poor  materials  for  an  argument  to  prove 
that  infant  baptism  "  enfeebles  the  power  of  the 
church  to  combat  error ;"  but  this  is  all  we  find^ 
and  being  the  best  the  Dippers  can  offer  in  a  region 
so  scanty  of  materials,  they  must  be  excused  for  do- 
ing no  better. 


CHAPTER  XYI. 

"infant  baptism  is  an  evil;  because  it  injures  the  CREDrr 
OF  religion  with  reflecting  men  of  the  world." 

Our  Doctor's  "reflecting  men"  are  those  pseudo- 
philosophers — free-thinkers — who  are  governed  more 
bj  their  own  reason  than  bj  '•  the  wisdom  which  is 
from  above."  They  are  represented  as  being  oifend- 
ed  by  the  simple  rite  of  infant  baptism,  which  "  in- 
jures the  credit  of  religion  among  reflecting  men  of 
the  world."  Perhaps  the  doctor  has  not  been  inform- 
ed that  the  same  men  are  equally  offended,  when  they 
see  "  men  and  women  taking  a  mere  pinch  of  bread 
and  a  small  sup  of  wine"  in  commemoration  of  the 
Saviour's  death,  '•  as  if  any  one  could  believe  that 
such  a  thing  can  make  them  holy."  The  doctor  and 
his  "  reflecting  men  of  the  world"  must  learn  to  lay 
their  pride  and  reason  at  the  foot  of  the  cross  before 
any  of  them  can  be  saved.  When  God  commands, 
we  shall  not  wait  to  ask  what  "  reflecting  men  of  the 
world"  will  think  of  us  if  we  obey.  They  must  yield 
to  Godj  not  God  to  them.     And  pray,  what  is  done 


188  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

to  the  honor  of  religion  when  ''  reflecting  men  of  the 
world"  see  Christian  pastors  courting  their  approba- 
tion in  order  to  swell  their  party  numbers  ?  Such  a 
church  may  have  a  name,  a  form,  and  numbers,  and 
"  worldly"  laudation ;  but  piety  can  flourish  only 
where  the  Will  of  God  is  supreme. 

But  let  the  Doctor  tell  us  how  infant  baptism  thus 
"injures  the  credit  of  religion  among  reflecting  men 
of  the  world." 

"  It  does  so,  in  the  first  place,  because  it  is  really 
in  itself  irrational." 

Well,  this  is  assuming  a  great  deal.  Are  Dr.  H., 
Dippers,  and  "reflecting  men  of  the  world,"  the  only 
creatures  that  God  has  endowed  with  reason  ?  How 
exquisitely  modest  in  them  to  condemn  as  "  irration- 
al" all  the  great  lights  which  have  shined  in  Pedo- 
baptist  churches  !  The  highest  wisdom  that  we  have 
discovered,  is  to  obey  Him  who  commands  us  to  re- 
ceive little  children  in  His  name,  and  who  tells  us 
of  but  one  way  to  place  his  name  on  any  one  by 
baptism.  Until  Dr.  H.  can  tell  another  way  of  trans- 
ferring the  name  of  Christ,  he  may  pay  his  homage 
to  "reflecting  men  of  the  world;"  but  Jesus  shall 
have  ours. 

"  In  the  second  place,  infant  baptism  injures  the 
credit  of  religion  because  it  is  practiced  without  any 
authority"  !  ! 

This  is  a  mistake,  for  the  Apostle  Paul,  in  the 
tenth  chapter  of  his  first  epistle  to  the  Corinthians, 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  189 

declares  that  their  "  fathers  were  all  baptized"  at  the 
Red  Sea,  and  this,  among  other  things,  was  intended 
as  an  example  for  our  instruction  and  imitation  ;  and 
Moses  says  that  at  the  time  of  this  model  baptism 
they  had  among  them  little  "  ones."  Now,  if  some 
of  them  were  little  children,  and  they  were  all — 
every  one — baptized,  and  that  by  a  divine  example 
for  us  to  follow,  with  what  face  can  it  be  said  that 
"  it  is  practiced  without  authority"  ?  True,  we  have 
no  authority  from  Dr.  Howell's  "  reflecting  men  of 
the  world  ;"  but  we  have  ^hat  is  far  better — the  au- 
thority of  a  divine  example,  and  the  approbation  of 
men  as  reflective  and  far  more  pious — men  as  honest, 
studious,  and  thoroughly  learned — the  preceptors 
of  his  "reflecting  men  of  the  world." 

'•  Infant  baptism,  in  the  third  place,  injures  the 
credit  of  religion  by  casting  suspicion  on  the  whole 
subject." 

Here  Pedo-baptists  are  represented  as  deceitful. 
Take  his  own  words  :  "  If  I  find  a  man  equivocating, 
and  double-dealing  with  me  on  one  subject,  I  suspect 
he  may  on  another ;  and  if  T  detect  him  so  acting 
in  several  instances,  I  withdraw  my  confidence  from 
him  entirely,"  This  is  applied  to  Pedo-baptists  gen- 
erally. Leaving  all  mankind  to  judge  here,  and 
God  hereafter,  whether  we  deserve  such  blurs,  we 
may  try  the  Doctor's  rule  on  himself. 

If  he  "  withdraws  his  confidence  entirely"  from  all 
who  are  guilty  of  "  double-dealing,"  he  must  have 


190  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

lost  all  confidence  in  himself  long  ago ;  for  at  one 
time  he  says  Pedo-baptists  are  "  learned  and  pious," 
at  another,  he  declares  they  are  "  irrational"  and 
"  corrupt."  Now  he  says  many  of  them  deny  "  bap- 
tismal regeneration;"  again,  they  "  all  proclaim  it  as 
a  condition  of  infant  salvation."  Once  he  says  in- 
fant baptism  dispenses  with  a  "  profession  of  faith  ;" 
again,  he  declares  that  in  it  the  infant  "  makes  a 
profession  of  religion."  The  time  would  fail  me 
here  to  record  the  one  tenth  part  of  his  "double- 
dealing."  If,  then,  other  men  adopt  his  rule,  and 
"  withdraw  [their]  confidence  entirely  from  him"  he 
will  be  in  a  deplorable  condition.  It  is  very  "  ir- 
rational" for  any  man  to  contradict  himself  so  often 
in  one  small  book.  What  will  "reflecting  men  of  the 
world"  think  of  it  1  "  Suspicion  is  awakened,  and 
men  of  the  world  are  repelled  by  it  from  religion." 

"  Finally,  infant  baptism,  as  practiced  among  us, 
is  a  well-arranged  sectarian  device." 

Wonderful !  Dangerous  thing  that !  There  are 
Congregationalists,  Methodists,  five  bodies  of  Pres- 
byterians, Episcopalians,  &c.,  &c.,  who  practice  it ! 
What  a  "  sectarian  device"  !  All  but  the  Dippers 
hold  to  the  faith ;  and  if  we  count  the  Greek  church, 
three-fourths  of  the  Dippers  themselves  practice  it  ! 
Why,  it  is  almost  like  the  Bible — all  cling  to  it  but 
the  Dippers;  and  of  late  years,  since  they  threw 
away  the  foolish  notion  of  their  own  inspired  infalli- 
bility, and  ceased,  like  Roman  Catholics,  to  burn  the 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  191 

written  Word  of  G-od,  they  adopt  the  Bible,  except 
in  regard  to  such  things  as  *'  awaken  suspicion  in 
men  of  the  world,  and  repel  them  from  religion." 
When  they  shall  have  learned  to  take  the  Bible  as 
the  only  rule  of  faith,  and  teach  "  reflecting  men  of 
the  world"  to  reflect  on  the  authority  of  God  instead 
of  their  own  conceits,  they,  too,  will  gain  a  position 
whence  they  can  see  the  wisdom  of  the  rite. 

If  infant  baptism,  practiced  by  so  many  denomi- 
nations, all  having  communion  with  one  another,  be 
a  sectarian  device,  what  is  immersion,  practiced  by 
a  siogle  party,  and  that  party  so  exclusive  as  to  de- 
bar all  the  rest  from  Christian  fellowship,  claiming 
exclusively  for  itself  all  the  prerogatives  of  the 
Church  of  God  ? 


CHAPTEE     XYII. 

"infant   baptism  is  an  evil;    because   it   is  the   GaEAT 
BARRIER  TO  CHRISTIAN  UNION." 

Our  author's  strength  seems  to  be  on  the  wane, 
and  his  chapters  are  growing  very  short.  The  fol- 
lowhig  extracts  exhibit  the  whole  strength  of  this 
one. 

"  Christian  union  and  infant  baptism  never  can 
exist  together.  But  Christian  union  is  imperative 
upon  us  alh  Whatever  prevents  it  is  an  evil  In- 
fant baptism  prevents  it.  Therefore  infant  baptism 
is  an  evil" 

There  is  a  mistake  in  this  syllogism.  Everybody 
knows  that  if  we  should  give  up  infant  baptism  to- 
day, the  Dippers  would  suifer  no  union  or  commun- 
ion with  us  until  we  were  immersed.  A  dozen  of 
denominations,  containing  a  dozen  times  as  many 
numbers  as  the  Dippers,  must  yield  their  consciences 
and  their  intelligent  convictions  to  satisfy  the  rabid 
sectarianism  of  one  party  in  order  to  secure  Chris- 
tian union  !     Here  is  a  sharp  smack  of  that  same 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  193 

old  inspired  infallibility,  which  the  Dippers  have 
ever  claimed  for  themselves.  Even  when  thej  have 
been  forced  to  acknowledge  the  supreme  authority 
of  the  written  Word,  they  have  found  out  the  device 
of  claiming  to  be  the  only  infallible  expounders  of 
that  Word,  which  in  effect  is  no  better  than  the  old 
claim  to  inspiration.  Pedo-baptists,  in  Christian 
liberality,  have  been  willing  for  Dippers,  to  follow 
their  own  convictions  in  regard  to  the  subjects  and 
the  mode  of  Christian  baptism  ;  and  for  centuries 
they  have  held  out  to  them  the  right  hand  of  fellow- 
ship, but  all  to  no  purpose.  In  vain  do  we  entreat 
— in  vain  does  Christ  command  and  pray  that  his 
disciples  be  one  in  love  and  union.  The  Dippers  will 
consent  to  nothing  short  of  our  yielding  the  liberty 
wherewith  Christ  has  made  us  free — the  liberty  of 
thinking  for  ourselves.  If  we  would  yield  our  re- 
sponsibility to  Christ,  consult  the  whims  of  '•  reflect- 
ing men  of  the  world,"  hold  ourselves  answerable  to 
Dippers,  take  for  truth  infallible  all  they  say,  con- 
trary to  conviction  and  conscience  leave  our  children 
out  of  the  church,  uninstructed  in  what  we  believe 
to  be  God's  will  revealed  in  the  Bible,  and  then,  un- 
der their  mandate,  exchange  the  sprinkling  of  clean 
water  for  a  dii)  even  in  some  green  pool,  or  stagnant 
pond,  all  would  be  right  with  them,  and  we  then 
might  have  union ;  but  whether  it  would  be  Chris- 
tian icnion,  would  still  recjuire  to  be  left  to  their 
decision  without  a  murmur  from  our  consciences. 
17 


194  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

Then  it  is  plain  that  it  is  not  infant  baptism,  nor 
even  immersion,  that  prevents  '•  Christian  union." 
It  is  phiiulj  the  arrogant  claim  of  the  Dippers  to 
infallibility.  Then  we  will  correct  the  syllogism  : 
'  Whatever  prevents  Christian  union,  is  an  evil. 
But  the  arrogance  of  the  Dippers  prevents  it. 
Therefore  the  arrogance  of  the  Dippers  is  an  evil' — 
a  flagrant  sin  against  the  love  of  God. 

The  arrogance  of  the  Dippers  "  is  therefore  an 
offence  against  Christ,  an  offence  against  the  peace 
and  harmony  of  his  people,  an  offence  against  the 
souls  of  men."  And  who  is  responsible  for  this 
monstrous  evil  ?  Those,  of  course,  who  introduced 
it,  and  who  still  adhere  to  "  its  practice."  ''  For  all 
its  calamities  they  must  account  to  God  and  men. 
We  solemnly  declare  ourselves  innocent  of  its  enor- 
mities. We  never  can  approve  it."  This  is  Dr. 
Howell's  gun,  turned  upon  himself  And  because 
he  and  his  party  do  not  approve  infant  baptism,  we 
are  to  have  no  Christian  union  !  They  cannot  leave  it 
to  the  Master  to  judge  !  they  must  take  that  matter 
into  their  own  hands  ! 

They  cannot  abominate  infant  baptism  more  than 
we  do  immersion ;  but  having  borne  our  testimony 
against  it,  we  leave  it  for  the  Master  to  judge  be- 
tween them  and  us,  and  we  extend  to  them  over  and 
beyond  what  we  deem  a  hurtful  error,  the  right 
hand  of  fellowship.  They,  sullen  and  moody,  say  in 
effect,  "  We  are  the  people,  and  you  are  in  error. 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  195 

We  are  infallible  expounders  of  God's  Word,  and 
you  are  '  irrational.'  Put  away  your  unreason- 
able obstinacy,  and  yield  conscience,  intellect,  emo- 
tion, and  will,  to  our  infallible  understanding  of 
God's  Word,  and  we  can  have  union ;  but  on  no 
other  terms."  This  is  the  language  of  their  con- 
duct, and  they  cannot  deny  it. 


CHAPTER    XYIII. 

"  INFANT  BAPTISM  IS  AN  EVIL ;  BECAUSE  IT  PREVENTS  THE  SALU- 
TARY IMPRESSION  WHICH  BAPTISM  WAS  DESIGNED  TO  MAKE 
UPON  THE  MINDS  OF  BOTH  THOSE  WHO  RECEIVE  IT  AND  THOSE 
WHO  WITNESS  ITS  ADMINISTRATION. 

This  chapter  is  introduced  with  a  just  account  of 
the  impression  intended  to  be  made  on  the  mind  of 
the  recipient,  and  of  those  who  witness  it ;  but  it  is 
contended  that  immersion  alone  is  suited  to  make 
such  impressions.  The  oft-repeated  idea  of  ''  the 
watery  grave"  is  the  only  reason  offered  for  the  prefer- 
ence given  to  immersion.  Let  us  once  more  remind 
our  opponents  that  this  idea  of  burial,  by  every  fair 
rule  of  interpreting  the  apostle's  words,  is  found  not  in 
the  manner  of  baptizing,  but  in  the  visible  eff'ect  pro- 
duced by  baptism.  After  baptism  the  old  man  is  to 
be  seen  no  more.  He  is  dead.  He  is  buried.  The 
old  man  is  buried  ;  and  if  buried  mean  immersed^ 
then  it  is  the  old  man  that  is  immersed.  But  bap- 
tism is  applied  not  to  the  old  man,  but  to  the  nev. 
When  the  new  man  is  baptized,  the  old  one  is  buried, 
and  the  burying  is  the  effect  of  baptism,  and  not  the 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  197 

manner  of  baptism.  There  is  also  an  effect  on  tlic 
new  man.  He  rises  to  view  in  a  new  life.  Baptism 
places  liim  among  the  saints,  where  he  never  ap- 
peared before.  He  is  like  one  just  born  into  a 
famil}',  where  he  never  was  a  member  before.  He  is 
like  one  raised  from  the  dead  to  take  his  place  in 
society.  Then  the  burial  and  the  resurrection  are 
visible  effects  of  baptism,  and  not  the  manner  of 
bajJtizing. 

It  is  plain,  then,  that  the  proper  "  impression"  de- 
pends on  a  proper  conception  in  the  premises.  If 
the  proper  conception  of  baptism  be  that  of  a  burial 
rite  performed  on  the  old  man  to  displace  him  from 
society  and  from  view  in  corruption  and  death,  then 
the  preference  must  be  given  to  immersion  ;  and  it 
is  to  be  administered  to  the  old  man^  not  to  the  be- 
liever, who  is  already  "  born  of  God,"  and  is  the 
new  man.  But  if  the  proper  conception  of  baptism 
be  the  cleansing  of  the  neiv  man  from  the  corruption 
and  death  of  the  old  man  with  an  effectual  applica- 
tion of  "  the  blood  of  sprinkling"  by  the  bedewing 
Spirit  descending  from  above  and  imparting  life, 
then  baptism  is  to  be  administered  by  sprinkling 
clean  water,  not  on  the  old  man^  but  on  the  new — 
on  all  who  stand  in  the  new  kingdom  of  grace ; 
whether  believing  adults,  or  innocent  babes  who 
have  not  by  personal  transgression  departed  from 
the  kingdom  of  God. 

Our  author  tells  of  tears  which  have  flowed  on 
17* 


198  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

witnessing  immersion.  If  tears  contain  any  scrip- 
tural argument,  we  could  record  as  many  and  as 
large  ones  that  have  appropriately  accompanied  the 
sprinkled  drops  of  baptismal  water.  But  tears 
merely  prove  the  earnestness  and  deep  feelings  of 
those  who  shed  them,  and,  although  valuable  for 
other  purposes,  they  can  contribute  little  with  men 
of  sense  to  settle  controversies  about  doctrine. 

Dr.  H.  says,  "  But  the  sprinkling  of  a  babe  de- 
stroys every  salutary  result."  This  is  true,  no  doubt, 
in  regard  to  those  who  have  prejudices  against  it. 
The  same  is  true  of  immersion  in  regard  to  those 
who  do  not  believe  it  to  be  the  way  of  baptizing. 
If  the  sprinkling  of  babes  must  be  discontinued, 
because  dipping  Christians  disapprove  it,  then  im- 
mersion must  be  discontinued,  because  baptizing 
Christians  disapprove  that;  unless  Dippers  are  en- 
titled to  special  privileges. 

If  tears  would  answer  for  arguments,  they  are 
not  wanting  in  relation  to  the  baptism  of  infants. 
Nor  do  we  doubt  but  with  God  the  tears  of  his 
Pedo-baptist  children  are  as  carefully  bottled  as 
those  of  his  dipping  children.  A  peculiar  notion 
this,  that  no  one's  tears  are  noticed  but  those  of 
Dippers  I  There  is  the  old  odor  of  their  inspired 
infallibility. 

Our  author  thinks  no  "salutary"  or  "lasting" 
impression  is  made  by  infant  baptism.     We  fear  he 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  199 

is  not  informed  on  that  subject.  The  writer,  now 
"  sprinkled  with  gray  hairs,"  remembers  well  an  ap- 
peal of  his  venerable  mother  in  early  childhood. 
He  had  been  guilty  of  some  delinquency,  when  his 
mother,  having  pointed  out  the  sin,  said,  "  My  dear 
child,  when  you  were  an  infant,  you  were  the  Lord's 
— you  were  born  his.  I  stood  before  God,  before 
the  church,  and  before  the  minister,  and  said  you 
were  the  Lord's.  In  your  baptism  I  vowed  that  by 
the  help  of  His  grace  you  should  always  be  the 
Lord's.  You  were  baptized  in  His  holy  name  ;  be- 
cause you  were  His.  In  His  name  the  church  re- 
ceived you,  and  the  water  which  is  an  emblem  of 
Christ's  precious  blood  that  cleanses  our  sinful  na- 
ture, was  sprinkled  upon  you.  You  have  no  liberty 
to  sin.  How  can  you  forsake  God,  and  His  church, 
and  His  blood  ?  How  can  you  sex've  Satan  ?  If 
you  have  sinned,  repent  of  it,  and  the  blood  of  Christ 
will  cleanse  you.  But  do  not  falsify  your  mother's 
vow  and  bring  a  double  curse  upon  your  own  head  !" 
She  shed  tears  too  ! 

The  effect  of  that  appeal  to  his  early  baptism 
cannot  be  effaced  from  his  mind,  "  while  his  being 
lasts."  Nor  is  this  a  solitary  case.  If  the  argu- 
ment required  it,  thousands  of  similar  eases  could 
be  produced.  But  it  needs  it  not.  Such  facts  may 
serve  to  encourage  and  comfort  others,  but  they  can- 
not be  adduced  as  inspired  authority  to  settle  con- 


200  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

troversy.  For  tliat  purpose  we  must  appeal  to  the 
written  Word  of  God,  not  to  the  "  tears"  or  "  joys" 
or  "  indelible  impressions"  of  Dippers,  or  anybody 
else,  even  "  reflecting  men  of  the  world." 


CHAPTER  XIX. 

"  ES'FAXT  BAPTISM  IS  AX  EVIL  ;    BECAUSE  IT  RETARDS  THE  DESIGNS 
OF  CHRIST  IN  THE  CONVERSION  OF  THE  WORLD." 

After,  an  excellent  exhortation  concerning  the 
conversion  of  the  world,  Dr.  H.  suddenly  breaks  off 
as  follows  :  "  She  [the  church]  is  quarrelling  about 
fictions !  She  has  abandoned  the  nations  to  perish 
in  their  sins !  Infant  baptism,  like  the  touch  of  a 
torpedo,  has  benumbed  all  her  powers." 

As  Dr.  H.  admits  no  one  to  be  in  the  church  but 
those  who  are  dipped ;  and  as  he  declares  that  the 
conversion  of  Pedo-baptists,  as  well  as  the  rest  of 
the  benighted,  belongs  to  the  Dippers,  we  suppose 
that  he  means  to  say,  that  they  are  "  quarrelling 
about  fictions."  This  is  a  wonderful  concession  ;  but 
it  is  no  less  true.  They  have  so  caricatured  the 
views  of  others  as  to  turn  the  whole  into  mere 
''fiction;"  and  they  are  "quarrelling"  about  that  in- 
stead of  laboring  for  the  conversion  of  the  world ! 
But  how  has  infant  baptism  benumbed  them  ?  The 
heathen  do  not  practice  it.     Why  do  they  not  go  to 


202  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

work  on  them  instead  of  standing  here  in  a  quarrel 
with  us  about  our  duty  to  God  and  our  children. 
Tliey  quarrel  not  much  like  men  that  are  '■'-  benumb- 
ed." They  more  resemble  the  spiteful,  meddling 
people,  who  wish  to  compel  all  others  to  do  as  they 
please. 

The  Pedo-baptists  have  long  been  zealously  en- 
gaged in  efforts  to  enlighten  and  convert  the  world; 
but  the  Dippers  throw  every  obstacle  in  the  way. 
At  first  they  tried  to  persuade  the  people  that 
all  the  moneys  collected  for  Bible  Societies  and 
Foreign  Missions  were  employed  in  "  speculation." 
When  beaten  back  from  that  low  slang,  they  said 
it  was  of  no  use,  for  the  Lord  would  "  convert  the 
heathen  in  his  own  good  way  and  time."  When 
they  were  forced  to  acknowledge  that  NOW  is 
his  "good  time,"  and  the  agency  of  the  church  is 
his  '-good  way,"  they  then  wanted  a  new  Bible  with 
dip  in  it.  Baptize  is  too  much  like  the  original 
Greek  word.  It  would  lead  the  people  away  from 
their  dearest  dogma — immersion.  They  would  pre- 
fer some  Roman  or  Saxon  word.  This  Bible  word 
will  never  do  for  them.  Still  Pedo-baptists  moved 
forward  with  the  Bible  in  their  hand.  The  Dippers 
became  alarmed.  They  held  a  convention  and  delib- 
erated what  must  be  done. 

A  master  spirit  said  they  must  denounce  Pedo- 
baptists  as  sects^  speaking  all  manner  of  diversities, 
and  constituting  Babylon^  and  no  part  of  God's  her- 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  203 

itage  on  earth.  Then  they  must  call  upon  all  to 
come  and  be  immersed,  on  peril  of  eternal  damnation, 
&c.,  &c.  He  concluded  by  saying  that  the  necessi- 
ties of  the  work  before  them  required  that  they 
should  have  evangelists  to  go  out  and  convert  the 
people,  then  pastors  to  instruct  them  after  they  were 
converted ;  and,  finally,  strong  men  to  go  before  and 
pull  down  the  walls  of  Babijlon.  To  this  counsel  they 
agreed,  and  they  went  to  work  accordingly.  Since 
that  we  have  learned  that  the  committee  to  pull 
down  the  ivalls  of  Babylon^  for  want  of  proper  in- 
struction, are  wasting  all  their  strength  against  the 
eternal  ramparts  of  New  Jerusalem  !  Truly,  they 
are  "  quarrelling  about  fiction'' !  Dr.  H.  seems  to 
be  on  this  committee.  Well,  stand  there  and  quar- 
rel.    We  know  what  we  have  to  do. 

Let  us  now  proceed  to  the  particular  specifica- 
tions. 

"  Infant  baptism  retards  the  designs  of  Christ  in 
the  conversion  of  the  world  by  placing  Baptists 
[Dippers]  and  Pedo-baptists  in  conflict  with  each 
other."  '•  In  conflict"  !  and  is  that  the  work  of  in- 
fant baptism  %  No,  verily.  Pedo-baptists  are  willing 
that  Dippers  should  work  with  all  their  might  for 
the  conversion  of  the  world.  There  is  room  enough 
and  work  enough  for  all.  But  the  Dippers,  not  con- 
tent to  labor  for  the  conversion  of  the  world,  are 
mainly  employed  in  efi"orts  to  proselyte  other  Chris- 
tians to  the  WATER.     They  would   rather  let   the 


204  EVILS   OF   DR.    HOWELL. 

heathen  go  to  hell  than  to  heaven  by  means  of  a 
Bible  with  haiotize  in  it,  Thej  must  alter  it  to  dip^ 
or  the  heathen  must  have  no  Bible.  It  is  their  ar- 
rogance which  puts  them  "  in  conflict"  with  others. 
They  are  infallible.  The  rest  are  in  error,  are 
"irrational." 

"  Infant  baptism  retards  the  designs  of  Christ  in 
the  conTersion  of  the  world,  by  diverting  from  the 
work,  the  time,  the  talents,  the  learning  and  the 
money  of  the  church."  Yes,  if  the  Dippers  would 
yield  their  obstinate  opposition,  there  would  not  be 
so  many  ministers  needed  at  home,  and  of  course 
more  might  be  sent  to  the  heathen.  But  they  think 
everybody  ought  to  yield  to  their  dictation ;  and  oth- 
ers, loving  liberty  too  well  to  give  it  up,  will  hold 
on  to  their  own  convictions  of  duty.  The  Dippers, 
conceiting  that  they  are  infallible,  take  it  hard  that 
all  the  world  do  not  yield  to  this.  This  keeps  them 
in  a  fret,  and  much  "  time,  talent  and  money"  are 
spent  in  "  quarrelling  about  [the]  fiction"  of  their 
right  to  the  claim  of  infallibility. 

"  Infant  baptism  retards  the  designs  of  Christ  in 
the  conversion  of  the  world,  by  giving  the  name  of 
Christians  to  the  abandoned  and  profligate  merchants, 
and  sailors,  and  soldiers,  and  others  in  foreign  lands. 
They  really  are,  for  the  most  part,  members  of  Pedo- 
baptist  churches,  into  which  they  were  received  in 
infancy." 

Dr.  H.  must  certainly  know  that  the  heathen  are 


EVILS    OF   DR.    HOWELL.  205 

unacquainted  with  the  disputes  of  Christendom  about 
baptism.  He  must  also  know  that  all  men  who  go 
from  Christian  lands  are  called  Christians  by  the 
heathen  without  the  slightest  reference  to  baptism. 
He  ought  to  know  that  when  one  who  was  baptized 
in  infancy  becomes  openly  immoral,  he,  by  the  fact, 
ceases  to  be  even  a  visible  member  of  the  church,  just 
as  Esau  when  he  sold  his  birthright.  If  he  would 
put  himself  to  the  trouble  of  a  little  inquiry,  he  would 
find  some  of  the  most  abandoned  and  abominable  that 
ever  disgraced  the  Ciiristian  name  in  heathendom^ 
were  at  the  time  dipped  members  of  that  church 
which  claims  to  be  the  only  exponent  of  Christianity 
on  the  earth ;  and  some  of  these  atrocious  sinners 
are  now  missionaries  and  ministers  !  He  may  here 
have  his  own  words  back:  "Religion  must  be  set 
forth  and  practiced  in  a  plain,  cwndid,  open,  ingenu- 
ous, honest  manner.  If  I  find  a  man  equivocating 
and  double  dealing  with  me  on  one  subject,  I  suspect 
he  may  on  another ;  and  if  I  detect  him  so  acting  in 
several  circumstances,  I  withhold  my  confidence  from 
him  entirely." 

We  conclude  with  another  specimen  of  Dr.  H.'s 
bare  assertions. 

'•  Infant  baptism  has  done  more,  directly  and  indi- 
rectly, than  all  other  corruptions  combined  to  over- 
throw truth,  to  turn  men  away  from  vital  religion, 
to  pollute  Christianity,  to  enfeeble  her  power,  and 
to  keep  back  the  hour  of  her  final  triumph.  Infant 
18 


206  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

baptism  is  the  most  pernicious  lieresy  that  ever  found 
its  way  into  the  church  of  Christ." 

Dogmatic  dictation  can  be  afforded  much  cheaper 
than  vigorous  argument,  as  everybody  knows ;  and 
those  who  cannot  afford  the  latter,  often  abound  in 
the  former.  The  moral  purity  of  Scotland  alone 
will  be  a  sufficient  refutation  of  all  such  gasconade. 


CHAPTEE  XX. 

"recapitulation-,  with  concluding  address." 

After  looking  over  this  chapter  with  some  care, 
we  concluded  that  with  a  little  emendation  it  will  do 
pretty  well,  and  we  therefore  transcribe  it,  indicating 
the  correction  of  errors  in  the  composition  by  italics. 
It  is  as  follows : 

The  evils  resulting  to  the  church  from  the  arro- 
gant claims  of  Dippers  to  infallibility  have  now,  in 
most  of  their  forms,  passed  successively  in — under? — 
review.  They  have  been  considered  calmly,  dispas- 
sionately, but — and  ? — faithfully,  and  as  demanded  by 
the  written  truth  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  If  I 
have  '^nothing  extenuated,"  neither  have  I  ''set  down 
aught  in  malice."  Let  them  be  here  briefly  recapit- 
ulated. 

The  arrogance  of  the  DijiiJers  is  an  evil,  because 
its  practice — the  j^ractice  of  it  ? — is  unsupported  by 
the  Word  of  Grod,  which  gives  all  judgment  to  the 
So?i ;  because  its  defence — tlie  defence  of  it  ? — leads 
to  most  injurious  perversions  of  Scripture ;  because 


208  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

it  engrafted  Judaism  upon  the  gospel  of  Christ,  hy 
leading  Dippers  to  siqipose  that  they  are  the  only 
people  of  God^  as  did  the  bigoted  Jews ;  because  it 
falsifies  the  doctrine  of  universal  depravity,  5?/ ^?^- 
ducing  them  to  deny  their  liability  to  err  like  other 
men ;  because  it  contradicts  the  great  fundamental 
principle  of  justification  by  faith,  and  ascribes  it  to 
immersion ;  because  it  is  in  direct  conflict  with  the 
doctrine  of  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  regenera- 
tion, ascribing  the  neiv  birth  to  dipping ;  because  it 
despoils  the  church  of  those  peculiar  qualities  which 
are  essential  to  the  church  of  Christ,  namely^  the 
embracing  of  all  God's  people  in  one  brotherhood  of 
universal  Christian  felloioship ;  because  its  practice 
— the  practice  of  it? — perpetuates  the  superstition 
that  originally  produced  it,  namely^  the  notion  that 
a  great  deal  of  ivater  is  necessary  to  ivash  aivay  sin  ; 
because  it  subverts  the  Scripture  doctrine  of  infant 
salvation,  by  excluding  them  from  the  covenant  of 
grace  and  the  kingdom  of  God  ;  because  it  leads  its 
advocates  into  rebellion  against  the  authority  of 
Christ,  by  excluding  from  His  covenant  and  kingdom 
those  ivhom  he  declares  to  be  heirs  of  Ids  salvation  ; 
because  of  the  connection  it  assumes  with  the  moral 
and  religious  training  of  children,  assuming  that 
their  liberty  is  to  be  consulted  as  to  what  they  are  to 
be  taught^  ivhen  they  knoio  not  hoiv  to  choose^  and 
■  never  can  know  till  they  are  taught ;  because  it  is 
the  crand  foundation  on  which  rests  the  union  of 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  209 

Church  and  State, — establishment  of  the  Church  by 
the  State  ? — foj-  in  all  such  establishments  one  jmrty 
claims  infallibility^  and  excludes  the  rest ;  because 
it  leads  to  religious  persecution, /or  the  i^ersccutor 
always  assumes  that  he  is  infallibly  right ;  because 
it  is  contrary  to  the  principles  of  civil  and  religious 
freedom,  tvhich  can  exist  only  ivhere  all  have  equal 
claims  ;  because  it  enfeebles  the  power  of  the  church 
to  combat  error,  ivhich  can  be  effected  ivith  the  ivrit- 
ten  Word  of  God  alone  ;  because  it  injures  the  credit 
of  religion  with  reflecting  men  of  the  world,  icho  al- 
ivays  despise  to  see  ivealc  mortals  claiming  infalli- 
bility ;  because  it  is  the  great  barrier  to  Christian 
union,  assuming  to  decide  itself  ivhat  others  must 
believe;  because  it  prevents  the  salutary  impression 
which  baptism  was  designed  to  make  upon  the  minds, 
both  of  those  who  receive  it  and  those  who  witness 
its  administration,  since  it  maJces  baptism  to  be'-'-  no- 
thing but  for  m^''  destitute  of  all  meaning  and  design^ 
for  nothing  else  but  to  avoid  the  instructive  method 
of  Bible  sprinkling ;  and  because  it  retards  the  de- 
signs of  Christ  in  the  conversion  of  the  world,  by 
struggling  to  keep  the  Bible  from  the  people^  till  it 
can  by  its  oion  infallibility  put  a  Latin  ivord  in 
2olace  of  God^s  original  Greek.  These  mainly  are 
the  charges  I  prefer  against  this  flagitious  arro- 
gance of  the  Dippers.,  and  I  believe  that  I  have 
proved  each  one  of  them  conclusively.  If  so,  it  is  a 
18* 


210  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

great  and  unmitigated  evil.  It  not  only  does  no 
good,  but  it  does  evil,  immense  evil,  and  only  evil. 

In  closing  this  discussion,  may  I  not,  in  the  first 
place,  address  a  few  words  to  my  dipping  brethren  1 

Will  you  not  here  pause,  and,  with  the  Bible  in 
your  hand,  prayerfully  re-examine  this  whole  subject  ? 
You  have,  vei'y  probably,  never,  at  any  time,  given 
it  a  careful  investigation ;  for  the  Bible  condemns 
illihercdity  in  tlie  i:)lainest  terms.  You  found  it  in 
your  church ;  and,  very  naturally,  feeling  a  prejudice 
in  favor  of  whatever  she  approves  and  observes,  you 
received  and  adopted  it.  You  have  since  practiced 
this  exclusive  spirit,  under  a  sort  of  indefinite  im- 
pression that,  although  you  do  not  yourself  compre- 
hend with  any  clearness  how,  yet  it  is  defensible  by 
the  Word  of  God ;  since  ive  must  separate  from  the 
world .^  and  all  not  dip)2)ed  are  yet  in  the  icorld. 
This,  I  know,  is  the  position  occupied  by  thousands 
^;^  your  church.  You  do  not  design  to  depart  from 
the  gospel.  Least  of  all,  do  you  imagine  that  in 
this  matter  you  are  committing  an  injury  in  any 
way.  The  enormous  evil  it  briugs  upon  you,  upon 
your  children,  upon  the  church  and  upon  the  world, 
is  a  great  fact  to  which  jowc  attention  has  not  hith- 
erto been  called.  You  have  regarded  it  with  favor ; 
because  it  is  observed  by  your  church ;  because  great 
men  practice  and  defend  it;  because  it  is  a  time- 
honored  work  to  exclude  God* s  people,  which  has  come 
down  to  you  through  a  period  of  fifteen  centuries, 


EVILS    OF    DK.    HOWELL.  211 

or  more;   and  you  inactice  it^   because   jou    have 
thought  that  if  it  does  no  good,  it  will  do  no  harm, 
since  they  can  commune  icith  God  all  alone.     But 
great  men  and  good  men — as  great  and  as  good  as 
any  that  have  defended  and  practiced  this  sectarian 
arrogance — have  also  practiced  and  defended  all  the 
corruptions  of  popery.     If,  on  this  account,  you  re- 
ceive this  exclusive  spirit,  you  are  obliged,  for  the 
same  reasons,  to  receive  all  the  corruptions  of  popery, 
and  that  excludes  God^s  own  people.     That,  too,  is 
a  time-honored  institution,  clothed  with  the  sanction 
of  more  than  twelve  centuries.     High  position,  great 
learning,  venerableness,  brawling  ignorance,  never 
can  give  authority  to  anything  which  is  in  itself  false 
and  injurious.      Ours  is  not  the  age,  nor  the  country, 
nor  is  religion  the  theme,  in  which  such  arguments 
can  be  respected.     Because   our  fathers  were  gov- 
erned by  kings  and    emperors,  who,   as  they  were 
taught  by  good  and  great  men,   "  ruled  by  divine 
right,"  shall   we   be  monarchists?     We   choose  in 
politics  to  exercise  our  own  judgment,  and  we  reject 
as  baseless  all  these  antiquated  pretensions.     Shall 
we  be  less  wise  in  religion,  and  allow  priests  to  dic- 
tate our  faith  ?    Here,  too,  we  will  look  not  to  men, 
but  to  God's  Word ;  not  to  antiquity,  but  to  divine, 
written,  revelation.     Our  appeal  is  "  to  the  law  and 
to  the  testimony."    If  we — they  ? — speak  not  accord- 
ing to  these — tJds  Word  ? — it  is  because  there  is  no 
light  jn  us — them  ? 


212  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

Does  sectarian  exclusivcness  do  no  harm  ?  I  per- 
suade myself  that  no  one  who  reads  these  pages  will 
ever  agaiu  urge  that  fallacious  plea.  Every  de- 
parture from  truth  must  be  an  evil,  and  this  is  one 
1  of  the  most  melancholy  of  them  all.  Will  you  not, 
my  brother,  ascertain  for  yourself  its  character,  and, 
renouncing  it,  return  cheerfully  to  the  Word  of 
God,  and  the  communioit  of  all  His  peopled  It  is 
"a  perfect  rule  of  faith  and  practice,"  a7id  the  love 
of  God's  2^eo2-)le  'promotes  the  love  of  God  Himself. 
If  you  and  all  others  do  so,  no  more  will  be  heard 
of  the  injurious  and  deprecated  custom.  Even  now, 
in  our  country  at  least,  it  is  losing  its  hold.  Among 
all  evangelical  Christians  it  is  rapidly  waning. 
Multitudes  of  the  best  members  in  the  immersing 
churches,  of  all  sects,  utterly  refuse  to  beheld  hack  from 
communion  with  all  tJieir  dear  brethren.  Will  you 
not  also  abandon  this  bigotry  ?  In  maintaining  this, 
or  any  other  error,  you  cannot  possibly  have  any  inter- 
est. Review  prayerfully,  and  in  the  light  of  the 
divine  Word,  your  opinions  and  practices  in  the 
promises.  I  am  sure  you  must  desire  to  know  the 
truth,  and  to  obey  the  truth;  and  itivill  be iiecullar- 
ly  delightful.^  by  holy  baptism^  folio  iving  Godh  ex- 
ample., to  receive  your  own  dear  offspring  in  your 
Saviourh  name.  It  may  cost  you  some  labor,  and, 
perchance,  demand  sacrifices  at  your  hands.  But 
will  you  shrink  from  it  on  these  accounts  ?  Let  the 
"love  of  Christ  constrain  "  you  in  this  work.     Bear 


EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL.  213 

your  cross,  and  mortify  the  jiesh.  Great  ivill  he 
your  reward.  Give  up  every  error  j^romjotly.  And 
may  God  enlighten  and  guide  you  into  the  knowledge 
of  His  will,  and  into  a  humble,  holy  and  ready 
obedience  in  all  things. 

May  I,  in  the  second  place,  appeal  to  persons 
who,  although  liberal  in  principle,  are  yet  members 
of  immersing  churches  ? 

This  class  of  persons  is  much  more  numerous  than 
has  generally  been  imagined*  Many  of  them  are  not 
aware  that  they  approximate  our  principles.  They 
have  derived  all  their  knowledge  of  them  through 
immersing  churches;  and  such  have  been  the  repre- 
sentations, that  they  suppose  us  to  be  almost  any- 
thing else  than  what  we  really  are.  It  has  ever  been 
our  lot,  as  it  is  of  all  God^s  j^eojjle,  to  be  traduced^ 
and  exhibited  in  false  lights,  by  sectarian  hypocrites 
and  bigots.  Even  their  ministers — this  is  the  most 
charitable  construction — are  strangely  ignorant  of 
us.  Not  a  few,  however,  know  that  they  do  really 
hold  our  opinions.  By  all  those  who  occupy  the 
contradictory  position  now  indicated,  I  would  gladly 
be  heard. 

What  apology  have  you  for  practicing  in  your  re- 
ligion one  set  of  principles,  while  you  really  believe 
another  ?  Do  you  tell  me  that  it  is  more  convenient 
for  you  to  be  a  member  of  an  i?Ji??iersing  church,  or 
that  your  family  are  members  of  such  a  church,  and 
it  is  not  desirable  that  you  should  separate  from 


214  EVILS    OF    DK.    HOWELL. 

them  ?  or  tbat  there  is  no  liberal  church  near  your 
residence,  or  that  there  are  some  things  among 
Fedo-bajytisis  that  you  do  not  like,  or  that  our  social 
relations  are  not  congenial,  or  that  you  are  not  sec- 
tarian in  3'our  feelings,  and  wish  to  evince  your  lib- 
erality by  remaining  v)ith  the  exdusionists  ?  One 
or  other  of  these,  or  some  like  reason,  for  the  aban- 
donment of  your  faith,  is,  alas,  but  too  often  heard  ! 
Are  any  such  suflScient  to  reconcile  you  to  a  relation 
which  must  result  in  serious  injury  to  your  growth 
in  grace^  since  it  violates  your  own  principles  and 
ideas  in  the  perpetuation  of  the  most  disastrous 
evils?  Can  3'ou  continue  to  believe  one  thing,  and 
to  profess  and  practice  another  and  opposite  thing  ? 
Such  inconsistency  speaks  little  for  your  Christian 
conscientiousness.  You  probably  require  baptism 
for  yourself,  having  received  a  dipjnng  in  the  ^ilace 
of  it.  You  think  every  other  believer,  as  a  believer, 
ought  to  be  baptized ;  but  you,  at  the  same  time,  re- 
fuse your  countenance  to  those  whose  liberal  opin- 
ions and  open  communion  agree  with  your  own 
v^e^vs  of  duty  to  God^  and  still  you  uphold  those  who 
maintain  the  contrary ! 

By  your  presence,  your  influence,  and  your  money, 
you  support  what  you  do  not  believe,  and  are  now 
convinced  Christ  does  not  authorize;  and,  by  with- 
drawing them  all  from  tJte  True  Baptists,  you  oppose 
what  you  do  believe,  and  are  assured  your  Saviour 
has  enjoined!     75  this  obedience?      Consider^  my 


EVILS    OF    DR.    EOWELL.  215 

brother,  what  you  are  doing.  You  renounce  dose 
communion,  and  you  at  the  same  time  vigorously 
uphold  it !  You  believe  it  is  wrong  and  a  sin,  and 
you  in  the  meantime  do  all  you  can  to  fasten  the 
evil  upon  the  church  and  the  world.  "  Come  out  of 
Jier,  my  people,  tha.i  ye  be  7wt  partakers  of  Jier  sinsP 
She  claims  to  le  tJie  only  true  church,  yet  shuts  out 
GocVs  people.  SJie  has  held  communion  with  those 
who  burnt  the  Neiv  Testament,  because  they  ivere 
immersed ;  but  she  exclude^  the  best  saint  witliout 
it.  In  her  communion,  immersion  holds  a  higher 
place  than  the  greatest  virtues.  She  denies  that  God 
is  the  God  of  tlie  infant  in  tJie  same  sense  that  he  is 
tlie  God  of  its  believing  parent.  Slue  shuts  the  in- 
nocent babe  out  of  tlie  kingdom  of  God  and  tlie  cov- 
enant of  his  grace.  SJie  claims  authority  to  alter 
the  original  baptize  into  the  Latin  immerse.  These 
are  great  sins.  You  cannot  consent  to  be  a  partaker 
of  them  with  her.      Then  come  out  promptly. 

When  remonstrance  is  offered  on  this  subject,  you 
should  not  reply  that  it  is  inconvenient  for  you  to 
separate  from  your  family  and  friends — that  you  do 
not  like  Pedobaptists,  icho,  in  the  ivide  range  of  their 
liJberality,  love  you.  If  you  are  no  sectarian,  you 
should  separate  yourself  at  once.  Can  you  suppose 
yourself  thus  justified  in  departing  from  what  you 
believe  the  law  of  Christ  ?  I  appeal  to  your  judg- 
ment and  your  heart.  I  ask  you  affectionately,  but 
candidly,  whether  you  can  reconcile  it  with  your  duty 


216  EVILS    OF   DR.    HOWELL. 

and  consistency  louger  to  continue  in  your  present 
contradictory  position  ?  How  can  you  be  liappy  or 
useful  as  a  Christian,  thus  daily  sacrificing  truth  and 
conscience  to  mere  worldlj^  considerations  ?  Do  you 
ask  what  you  must  do  ?  I  answer,  be  true  to  Jesus 
Christ.  Be  honest  with  yourself  and  others.  Will 
this  require  you  to  change  your  church  relations  ? 
And  what  then  ?  You  may  feel  that  it  will  be  a 
painful  sacrifice.  It  may  be  even  difficult.  Pride 
will  oppose  it.  You  will  be  appalled  by  the  odium 
it  will  bring  upon  you.  The  love  you  bear  to  those 
with  whom  you  are  now  associated,  and  who  v/ill 
frown  upon  you,  will  plead  against  it.  How  can  you 
surmount  these  barriers  ?  Nothing  but  the  firmest 
purpose,  sustained  by  the  grace  of  God,  can  carry 
you  forward.  On  the  other  hand,  however,  you  have 
the  most  animating  encouragements.  Christ,  who 
died  to  save  you,  demands  your  fidelity.  Truth 
claims  your  love  and  obedience.  The  honor  and  ad- 
vancement of  religion  call  you  to  act,  and  to  act 
promptly,  vigorously  and  effectually.  The  cause  of 
Christ  protests  against  your  present  course,  and 
claims  your  protection.  These  are  sufficient.  Leave 
the  icater  and  come  to  Christ.  Leave  sectarianism 
and  come  to  goierous  love.  Christ  and  his  lave 
will  bear  you  on  triumphantl}-.  Do  not,  I  entreat 
you,  refuse  to  consider  this  subject.  Dare  to  be 
consistent.  Dare  to  honor  and  obey,  as  well  as  love 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.     Remember  tJuit  indisput- 


EVILS    OF    DR.    IIO'.VELL.  217 

ahh  truths  TJtcre  is  not  onesingh  infant  in  hdl^  imr 
in  the  immersion  ckurch — not  one  !  But  in  Jieaven^ 
and  all  the  Pedo-baj^tist  cliurdies,  the  dear  little 
innocents  Jmve  a  place.  Come !  you  wish^  I  knoiv^ 
to  have  your  i^recious  babes  icith  you  %n  the  king- 
dom.    Leave  the  Dippers  to-day. 

And  now,  my  beloved  Pedo-baptist  brethren,  what, 
in  conclusion,  shall  I  say  to  3'ou?  IVe  are  one  in 
aim,  love  and  communion.  During  many  a  weary 
century  has  our  venerated  church  struggled  onward 
against  every  opposition.  She  has  been  denounced 
and  proscribed  by  every  despotism,  national  and 
ecclesiastical,  from  the  corrupt  p)opes  to  the  fanatical 
Dijjpers.  All  the  powers  of  earth  have  been  per- 
petually combined,  and  have  exerted  their  utmost 
energies,  for  more  than  eighteen  hundred  years,  to 
destroy  her ;  but  still  there  she  stands,  ivith  lier  in- 
fants in  leer  arms — a  p)ilgrim  yet  I  Her  home  is  in 
lieaven.  She,  with  her  scorned  babes,  ivill  reach  it 
safely.  God  has  been,  and  still  will  be,  our  "  refuge 
and  strength,  a  very  present  help  in  trouble."  Tlie 
gaAcs  of  hdl  have  not  prevailed,  and  never  shall, 
against  tlie  church.  That  little  band  has  become  a 
great  army.  "  The  days  of  our  mourning  are  [al- 
most] ended."  The  time  of  triumph  draws  nigh.. 
Your  advanced  position,  your  disciplined  array,  youi* 
growing  power  and  resources,  furnish  sufficient  in- 
dications that  Grod  is  about  to  introduce,  through 
your  instrumentality,  that  general  return  to  iDrim.i- 
19 


218  EVILS    OF    DR.    H0\7ELL. 

tive  order,  wliich  is  to  herald  the  conversion  of  the 
nations,  xvlhen^  according  to  his  Word,  God  "  wi/l 
sprinkle  clean  water  ii-pon  you  "  and  your  little 
ones.  This  work  is  to  be  done,  and  it  must  be,  for 
the  most  part,  done  by  you ;  since  it  never  can  be 
accomplished  by  those  who  adhere  to  immersion. 
How  can  they  hope  to  demolish  popery,  when  they 
strive, to  perpetuate  in  their  own  organizations  the 
very  keystone  of  its  strength,  namely,  exclusiveness 
and  human  infallibility  ? 

The  sjyirit  of  arrogance  was  the  chief  instrument 
that  brought  it  into  being,  and  if  continued,  will 
certainly  build  it  up  again,  the  same  in  substance,  if 
not  in  name.  Who  can  reasonably  look  for  ultimate 
triumph  in  a  conflict  with  infidelity,  by  those  who 
cherish  among  themselves  a  spirit  of  exclusiveness 
the  very  reverse  of  that  compreliensive  charity  ivhich 
is  the  distinguishing  feature  of  the  Gospel  ?  This 
is  but  the  labor  of  Sisyphus  repeated.  The  stone  of 
victory,  rolled  almost  to  the  mountain-top,  will  re- 
bound, and  fall  back  into  the  abyss  of  narrow  sec- 
taria7%ism.  Such  efforts,  to  be  successful,  must 
begin  at  the  foundation.  The  axe  must  be  laid,  and 
used  too,  at  the  root  of  sectarian  jwide.  Human 
infallihility,  that  old  upas-tree — which,  with  its 
death-distilling  branches,  ungodly  church-member- 
ship, blood-shedding  religions,  popery,  every  species 
of  exclusive   dogmatism,  and    scepticism,   has    for 


EVILS    OF    DR.    IiOWELL.  219 

fourteen  centuries,  and  more,  shaded  and  blasted 
the  world — must  come  down,  before  the  pure  light  of 
heaven  and  the  sweet  breath  of  life  can  circulate 
freely  over  the  expanse  of  darkened  and  diseased 
humanity.  You  must  not  only  enlighten  and  guide 
the  heathen  and  Mohammedan  nations  to  Christ,  but 
you  must  purify  Christendom,  papal  and  clipping ; 
nor  will  you  find  the  latter  achievement  less  diflaculfc 
than  the  former.  How  exalted  is  the  mission 
assigned  you  from  on  high  !  How  gloriously  it  is  to 
effect  the  destinies  of  the  world  !  Yours  is  a  loftier 
aim  than  mere  patriotism  and  philanthropy.  You 
seek  the  temporal  good  of  nations,  and  of  the  whole 
race.  But  you  stop  not  here.  You  labor  for  the 
eternal  salvation  of  men.  It  is  yours  to  carry  the 
news  of  everlastiog  life  to  all  the  perishing ;  to  fur- 
ish  every  family  on  the  face  of  the  earth  with  the 
Word  of  God  in  its  own  language,  mid  not  hi  the 
language  of  Dippers;  to  send  to  every  neighbor- 
hood a  preacher  of  the  gospel ;  and  to  erect  there  a 
temple  in  which  the  children  of  men  shall  learn  the 
anthems  of  the  blessed  above,  and  become  meet  to 
join  the  General  Assembly  and  Church  of  the  First 
Born,  whose  names  are  written  in  heaven.  Do  you 
properly  appreciate  your  obligations  ?  Up,  then, 
and  to  your  high  and  holy  calling.  God  himself  is 
with  you.  He  will  be  your  strength.  He  will  honor 
your  works  of  faith  and  labor  of  love  with  triumph- 


220  EVILS    OF    DR.    HOWELL. 

ant  success.  Dippers  shall  abandon  immersion^ 
give  up  their  stringent  sectarianism^  receive  the  babes 
in  the  name  of  the  Lord  ;  and  earthy  redeemed  from 
bigotry  and  idolatry^  shall  be  filled  icith  love^  and 
the  communion  of  saints  shall  be  universal.     Amen. 


TUE    END. 


ADVERTISEMENT. 


THE    TRUE    BAPTIST. 


It  is  proposed  to  re-publish,  in  a  neat  octavo  volume,  the 
Discussions  on  the  Baptismal  Question,  as  contained  in  the 
various  numbers  of  "The  True  Baptist,"  a  periodical  edited 
and  published  at  Jackson,  Miss.,  by  the  Rev.  A  Newton,  D.D. 
So  eminently  successful  has  Dr.  Newton  been  in  commending 
his  views  to  those  interested  in  the  various  points  associated 
with  the  discussion  of  this  question,  in  Christian  doctrine  and 
polity,  that  pressing  calls  have  been  made  upon  him  from 
many  quarters  for  their  re-issue,  in  a  more  permanent  form. 

It  has  been  determined,  in  response  to  their  calls,  to  re- 
publish his  Discussions  in  a  form  becoming  their  importance, 
and  at  a  price  that  will  encourage  the  wide  circulation  of  the 
volume.  The  time  of  publication  will  be  somewhat  i-egulated 
by  the  promptitude  with  which  subscribers'  names  for  the 
work  are  sent  in,  and  the  number  called  for.  It  is  expected 
that  many  will  be  taken  in  lots,  for  gratuitous  circulation. 
An  admii-able  opportunity  is  here  presented  for  engaging  in  a 
remunerating  business,  in  obtaining  subscribers  for  this  forth- 
coming work.  Applications  to  be  made  to  Dr,  Newton,  at 
Jackson,  Miss.,   or  the  publisher,  W.  M.  Dodd,    New  York. 


The  following  opinions,  embracing  but  a  portion  of  the  com- 
mendations given  of  this  work,  by  the  Press  of  the  country 
various  Ecclesiastical  Bodies  and  distinguished  individuals, 
will  show  the  estimate  put  upon  it  by  those  familiar  with 
its  character. 


OPINIONS  OF  THE  PRESS. 

From  the  Presbyterian  Herald,  Louisville,  Ky. 

The  editor  [of  the  True  Baptist]  handles  the  subject  of  Bap- 
tism and  its  cognates  with  more  ability  and  adaptedness  to  the 
assumptions  of  modern  immersionists,  than  any  writer  with 
whom  we  are  familiar.  All  who  desire  to  make  themselves 
familiar  with  this  controversy — and  it  is  one  which  the  arro- 
gant assumptions  of  the  opposite  party  will  force  all,  sooner  or 
later,  to  examine — would  do  well  to  avail  themselves  of  its 
sssistance. 


From  the  Nashville  and  Louisville  Christian  Advocate. 

Dr.  Newton  is  an  able  writer,  and  the  number  now  before 
us  shows  much  ability  and  research.  We  hope  it  will  have  a 
wide  circulation. 


From  the  Banner  of  Peace,  Nashville,  Tenn. 

"We  welcome  the  True  Baptist  with  a  hearty  good  will, 
•wishing  it  the  most  successful  and  useful  career — which  ma}* 
be  predicted  with  great  confidence  by  all  who  know  the 
ability  of  its  learned,  pious,  and  indefatigable  editor  and  pub- 
lisher. 


From  the  Southern  Christian  Advocate,  Charleston, 

"We  recommend  heartily  the  circulation  of  the  True  Baptist 
-wherever  the  Baptismal  controversy  has  attracted  attention. 


The  style  of  discussion  which  it  adopts,  and  the  sterling  ability 
and  research  which  characterize  its  articles,  particularly  as  to 
the  new  version  of  the  English  Bible,  will  recommend  it  to  all 
who  wish  to  keep  up  with  the  current  history  of  the  times. 


From  the  Christian  Observer,  Philadelphia. 

We  would  esteem  it  a  good  work  to  promote  its  circulation 
in  every  part  of  our  «ountry. 


From  the  Presbyteriari  Witness,  Knoxville,  Tennessee. 

There  is  a  great  deal  of  ability  in  the  True  Baptist.  It 
shows  thought,  and  research,  and  candor,  and  courtesy  *  *  * 
It  is  filled  with  *'  thoughts  that  breathe  and  words  that  burn" 
— burn,  because  they  are  true  words,  uttered  in  an  elevated, 
courteous.  Christian  temper.  *  *  *  *  Its  spirit  is  so  differ- 
ent from  that  manifested  by  the  opposition,  that  it  must  com- 
mend itself  to  unprejudiced,  liberal-mmded  Christians  every- 
where. 


From  the  Texas  Presbyterian. 
"We  have  no  hesitation  in  pronouncing  this  to  be  the  best 
work  of  the  kind  published.     We  would  be  glad  to  learn  of 
its  extensive  circulation  in  Texas. 


FroTn  the  Richmond  Christian  Advocate. 
We  have  several  times  noticed  this  really  valuable  publica- 
tion. Its  discussions  are  more  thorough  and  searching  than 
any  that  have  ever  fallen  under  our  notice.  The  great  masters 
of  the  immersional  theory  are  subjected  to  tests  of  Scripture 
argument,  learned  criticism,  and  logical  exposition  of  the 
falsity  and  fallacy  of  their  own  principles  that  leave  them 
high  and  dry  on  texts  in  which  they  supposed  they  had 
"  much  water,"  or  water  enough  to  float  whole  navies  for  the 
defence  and  support  of  their  system.  To  express  half  the  plea- 
sure we  derive  from  the  perusal  of  its  convincing  arguments 
against  the  doctrines  of  the  Baptist  Church,  on  the  mode  and 
subjects  of  baptism,  would  seem  to  be  a  fulsome  panegyric. 
*  *  *  *  We  heartily  commend  this  monthly  to  all  who 
desire  a  thorough  work  on  the  baptismal  controversy. 


Front  the  Ladies^  Pearl,  Nashville. 

The  editor  gives  unmistakable  evidence  of  being  an  efficient 
and  experienced  writer.  It  is  devoted  exclusively  to  the  sub- 
ject of  baptism,  and  will,  we  have  no  doubt,  give  the  advo- 
cates of  immersion,  as  the  only  mode,  not  a  little  trouble.  It 
should  be  taken  by  every  minister  and  member  of  the  church 
who  wishes  to  be  thoroughly  informed  on  this  subject,  whether 
Baptist  or  Pedo-Baptist 

From  the  Eastern  Clarion,  Paulding,  Miss. 
True  Baptist. — It  is  published  monthly  in  the  city  of  Jack- 
son, and  is  edited  by  the  Rev.  A.  Neutox,  a  classical  scholar, 
and  a  gentleman  of  fine  scholastic  attainments  and  general 
literary  accomplishments.  Not  being  theologians,  and  having 
nothing  to  do  with  religious  controversy  upon  doctrinal  points, 
we  will  not  pretend  to  an  expression  of  opinion  upon  the  con- 
troversial merits  of  the  2 r tie  Baptist.  All  who  would  thorough- 
ly investigate  the  question  of  Baptism  should  subscribe  to  Dr. 
Kewton's  work. 


From  the  Br  orison  Republican,  April  20,  1824. 
The  True  Baptist. — We  have  had  laid  upon  oiir  table  the 
first  volume  of  this  work  neatly  bound  in  cloth.  The  reputa- 
tion of  the  author,  Rev.  Mr.  Newton,  as  a  ripe  and  finished 
scholar,  a  profound  theologian,  and  a  sincere  Christian,  gives 
assurance  that  his  writings  will  be  read  with  profit  and  plea- 
sure by  these  who  may  wish  to  acquaint  themselves  with  all 
th€  arguments,  for  and  against  Immersion, 


Frojn  the  Brandon  Repuhlican. 
It  can  be  safel}'  recommended  to  friends  and  foes — to  the 
former,  because  it  embraces  doctrines  in  accordance  with  their 
perception  and  well-adapted  to  strengthen  their  principles, 
and  to  the  latter,  because  it  is  an  open  exponent  of  principles 
and  can  be  accredited  as  a  standard  work. 


From  the  St.  Louis  Presbyterian. 
The  True  Baptist  we  have  received  in  exchange  from  the 
time  of  its  beginning,  up  to  the  present ;  and  we  have  all  along 
been  led  to  admire  the  ability  and  learning  displayed  in  con- 


ducting  the  controversy.      We  do  not  see  how  our  Baptist 
brethren  can  withstand  such  a  battery,  so  well  manned. 

Dr.  Newton,  by  this  publication,  is  rendering  an  important 
service  to  the  cause  of  truth,  and  deserves  to  be  well  sustained. 
"We  think  the  extensive  circulation  of  this  publication  would 
accomplish  a  good  work,  and  we  therefore  recommend  our 
readers  who  are  interested  in  the  baptism  controversy  to  sub- 
scribe for  the  "True  Baptist,"  as  one  of  the  best  means  of  in- 
forming themselves  on  the  subject. 


From  the  Grenada  Rep%ihlican. 

True  Baptist. — The  ability  with  which  it  is  conducted 
should  cause  it  to  be  sought  after  and  read  by  all  interested 
in  a  thorough  knowledge  of  the  subject  of  baptism.  Even 
those  who  differ  with  the  views  entertained  by  Dr.  IS",  should 
read  it,  in  order  that  they  may  see  the  strong  points  against 
them  made  by  a  masterly  mind.  To  those  who  agree  with 
the  Doctor  in  opinions,  this  periodical  must  be  most  acceptable 
and  invaluable,  on  account  of  its  thorough  research  and  un- 
surpassed ability. 


From  the  Lexington  Advertiser. 

The  True  Baptist,  published  at  the  City  of  Jackson,  under 
the  supervision  of  the  Rev,  A.  Newtox,  strays  occasionally 
into  our  office.  It  is  a  chaste,  erudite,  and  graphic  perio- 
eical,  fully  sustaining  the  high  reputation  of  its  talended 
editor,  of  whom  it  may  be  emphatically  said,  "  non  tetigit 
quod  non  ornavit" 


From  the  Cumberland  Presbyterian,  St.  Louis. 

The  True  Baptist. — This  esteemed  periodical,  published  by 
Rev.  A.  ISTewton,  Jackson,  Miss.,  is  the  most  thorough  investi- 
gator of  the  doctrine  of  Christian  baptism,  that  we  have  ever 
read.  The  last  three  numbers,  in  one,  are  before  us.  Published 
monthly  at  $1  50  per  year. 


OPINIONS  OF  ECCLESIASTICAL  BODIES. 

The  Synod  of  Mississippi  (N.  S.),  at  tlieir  session  held  in 
October,  at  Grenada,  adopted  resolutions  in  whioh  they 
"earnestly  commend  the  True  Baptist  to  the  attention  and 
patronage  of  all  liberal-minded  and  truth  seeking  people,  as  a 
work,  whose  style  of  discussion  is  chaste  and  dignified,  con- 
ducted in  a  spirit  of  conciliation  and  brotherly  love,  and  better 
calculated  than  any  other,  to  present  the  truth  at  this  period 
in  the  history  of  the  church."' 


The  Synod  of  Mississippi  (0.  S.),  Resolved,  That  this  Synod 
do  most  cordially  approve  a  periodical  entitled  "  The  True 
Baptist,"  published  by  Rev.  A.  Newton,  D.D.,  in  the  city  of 
Jackson,  as  an  able  exponent  of  the  proper  mode  and  subjects 
of  baptism ;  and  recommend  the  same  to  the  patronage  of  the 
members  of  the  churches  under  our  care,  and  to  the  public,  as 
well  adapted  for  the  dissemination  of  sound  and  scriptural 
views  of  that  subject. 


3fississippi  Annual  Conference. — Resolved,  That  we  cordially 
recommend  to  the  members  of  our  church  "The  True  Baptist," 
published  by  Di\  Newton,  of  Jackson,  Miss.,  as  a  work  emi- 
nently calculated  to  assist  in  arriving  at  satisfactory  conclusions 
on  the  mode  and  design  of  baptism,  and  subjects  connected 
therewith. 


Union  Presbytery  of  C.  P.  Church.  (Miss.) 
Whereas  the  Rev.  A.  Newton,  of  Jackson,  Miss.,  is  publish- 
ing a  work,  entitled  "The  True  Baptist,''  devoted  to  the  dis- 
cussion of  the  subjects,  design,  and  mode  of  Baptism,  therefore, 

Resolved,  That  we  recommend  it  to  the  public  as  a  work 
calculated  to  concentrate  the  light  to  a  focus  on  those  subjects, 
and  as  a  valuable  addition  to  a  family  library. 


COMMENDATIONS  FROM   EMINENT  CLERGYMEN, 
AND  OTHERS. 

Extract  of  a  letter  from  Rev.  C.  Tli.  Marshall,  of  Yicks- 
burg,  Miss. 

As  the  Editor  has  signall}^  fulfilled  his  promises  respecting 
its  freedom  from  the  too  common  spirit  of  sectarian  violence 
and  the  villanous  slang  in  which  both  parties  have  so  often 
disgraced  the  columns  of  Christian  journals,  he  has  demon- 
strated the  practicability  of  discussing  this  remarkable  question 
■with  the  candour,  calmness,  courtesy,  and  forbearance  of  a^ 
Christian  gentleman. 

The  "  True  Baptist "  should  be  read  by  everybody  that 
feels  the  slightest  interest  in  the  merits  of  the  subject  of  its 
investigations.  I  am  sure  an  abler  or  more  satisfactory  source 
of  information  cannot  easily  be  obtained.  And  no  candid  and 
well  informed  opponent  can  deny  the  marked  ability,  judicious 
spirit,  and  sound  learning  which  characterize  its  pages.  I 
hope  our  Methodist  friends  will  give  it  a  careful  reading  as 
well  as  thousands  of  Baptists,  among  whom  are  a  multitude 
of  enlightened  and  eminent  Christians,  who,  though  their  views 
cannot  be  changed  on  the  subject  of  immersion,  may  see  in 
its  pages  many  reasons  tor  a  charitable  judgment  of  those 
who  from  the  most  sacred  convictions  are  compelled  to  reject 
that  method  of  baptism. 


Extract  of  a  letter  from  Rev.  J.  H.  C.  Leach,  D.D.,  of  Farm- 
yille,  Va.     April  7  th,  1854. 

I  consider  the  True  Baptist  decidedly  the  best  work  on 
the  subject  of  Chr.  Baptism  that  I  have  ever  read.  It  pre- 
sents the  subject  in  all  its  relations,  and  especially  in  its 
controverted  points,  with  clearness,  precision,  and  candor  j- 
and  in  my  judgment  leaves  nothing  for  further  argument  or 
controversy. 


8 

From  John  A,  Brown,  Esq.,  Philadelphia. 

Philadelphia,  9th  September,  1854. 
Dear  Sir, 

I  have  read  this  work  with  care  and  pleasure,  and 
consider  it  a  most  able  and  satisfactory  exposition  of  the 
proper  mode  and  subjects  of  Baptism,  and  hope  that  the  re- 
publication of  it  may  meet  with  the  success  which  it  deservedly 
merits. 

Your  obedient,  humble  servant, 

JOHN  A.  BROWN. 
M.  W.  DoDD,  New  York. 


Lynchburg,  August  22,  1854. 
Dear  Sir, 

With  much  pleasure  I  learned  a  few  days? 
since,  that  you  were  about  to  republish  from  the  "True 
Baptist"  Dr.  A.  Newton's  discussions  on  the  "  Mode  and  Sub- 
jects of  Baptism."  It  will,  in  my  opinion,  be,  "  The  Book  for 
the  Times"  on  the  subject  of  which  it  treats;  being  a  most 
candid  and  thorough  discussion  of  the  points  at  issue ;  racy, 
dignified,  and  eminently  perspicuous  in  style ;  and  in  argu- 
ment, so  logically  powerful,  as,  in  my  judgment,  to  be  anni' 
hilating. 

With  true  Christian  chivalry,  the  writer  faces  his  opponents, 
— they  are  such  men  as,  A.  Campbell,  Carson,  Cox,  Howell, 
Judson,  <fec.,  <fec. ;  and  with  the  sword  of  truth  turns  their  own 
weapons  upon  themselves,  and  makes  them  by  turns  contra- 
dict and  confute  themselves  and  one  another.  Such  a  work 
ought  to  be  in  the  hands  of  every  Christian ;  and  it  will  in  my 
opinion  obtain  a  circulation,  in  extent  unprecedented,  when- 
ever the  Christian  community  comes  to  know  its  merits. 

I  have  no  doubt  that  thousands  of  copies  will  be  sold  in 
Virginia. 

I  am  with  much  respect. 

Yours,  <fec., 

J.  D.  MITCHELL, 
Pastor  of  2nd  Presb.  Ch.,  Lynchburg,  Va 


9 

Froyn  Rev.  Dr,  Potts,  of  Kew  York. 
M.  W.  DoDD,  Esq. 

Dear  Sir, 
I  am  much  pleasured  with  the  acuteness,  originality,  honesty, 
and  force  of  this  book.    In  all  essential  points,  it  fully  accords 
with  my  own  views  of  the  truth  on  the  subject  of  which  it 
treats. 

GEO.  POTTS. 


The  following  unsolicited  commendation  has  been  very 
kindly  furnished  by  the  llev.  Messrs.  Campbell,  Scott,  and 
North,  of  New  Orleans : 

The  undersigned  is  a  subscriber  to  the  True  Baptist,  pub- 
lished by  the  Rev.  A.  Newton,  D.D.,  of  Jackson,  Miss.,  and  has 
received  its  monthl}^  numbers  regularly  since  its  commence- 
ment ;  and,  so  far  as  the  work  has  progressed  he  can  confi- 
dently and  cheerfully  recommend  it  as  an  able  and,  on  some 
points,  a  very  original  discussion  of  the  subject  on  which  it 
treats;  and  from  the  acknowledged  piety  and  talents  of  the 
learned  editor,  and  from  his  having  made  it  a  prominent 
study  for  a  series  of  years,  and,  in  the  meantime,  his  having 
discussed  it  triumphantly  before  crowded  audiences,  he  enter- 
tains no  doubt  that  the  conclusion  will  equal  the  commence- 
ment, and  the  whole  constitute  a  work  that  will  be  read  as 
long  as  the  Baptish  controversy  shall  continue  to  be  agitated 
in  the  Church, 

ALEXx\NDER  CA31PBELL. 


In  the  above  views  of  Rev.  Dr.  Campbell,  I,  as  a  subscriber 
to  Dr.  Newton's  work,  cordially  concur. 

W.  A.  SCOTT. 


Knowing,  from  a  long  personal  acquaintance  with  Dr.  New- 
ton, the  kindness  and  candor  of  his  nature  ;  and  having  been 
also  a  subscriber  to  his  work  from  the  beginning,  I  cheerfully 
concur  with  the  foregoing  gentlemen  in  their  recommendation. 

NATHANIEL  G.  NORTH. 


10 

From  the  Rev.  Dr.  Drake,  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
Natchez,  Miss. 

Natchez,  Miss.,  September  21,  1854. 

W.  K   DODD. 

Dear  Sir, 

I  can  with  heart}-  good  will  recommend  its 
publication. 

Yours  respectfully, 

B.  M.  DRAKK 


Sir, — Understanding  that  you  are  about  to  publish  Vol.  I., 
of  the  "True  Baptist,"  a  work  of  rare  merit  b}-  my  friend,  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Newton,  I  would  hereby,  with  many  others  of  my 
brethren  in  the  ministry,  express  my  high  gratification  at  the 
prospect  of  its  publication. 

Such  a  worlc,  from  its  clear  and  forcible  expositions  of  divine 
truth,  must  commend  itself  to  all  whose  minds  are  free  from 
sectarian  prejudice,  and  open  to  the  teachings  of  that  truth, 
concerning  the  mode  of  Christian  baptism. 

JOHN  F.  EDGAR, 
Pastor  1st  Rres.  Ch. 

Nashville,  Tenn.,  Nov.  22,  1854. 


M.  W.  DoD»,  Esq. 
My  dear  Sir, — I  am  gratified  to  learn  that  you  propose  the 
publication  of  a  re-arrangement  of  the  matter  of  Vol.  I.  of 
"  The  True  Baptist,"  by  Dr.  Newton  of  Mississippi. 

I  have  had  occasion  to  read  some  of  the  articles  in  this  first 
volume,  touching  the  mode  and  subjects  of  baptism,  and  have 
been  struck  with  the  thoroughness  of  the  discussion  and  with 
the  cumulative  evidence  against  immersion.  I  commend  it 
heartily  to  all  pastors  and  students  of  theology,  and  am  per- 
suaded that  it  needs  no  more  than  an  introduction  to  their 
notice  to  ensure  its  extensive  circulation. 

I  am  very  truly  yours, 

T.  J.  SHEPHERD, 
Pastor  of  the  Buttonwood-street  Presb.  Ch. 

Philadelphia,  5th  September,  1854. 


11 

From  Rev.  De.  Boyd,  Winchester,  Va. 

My  dear  Sir, — I  am  gratified  to  learn  that  you  propose  to 
publish  another  edition  of  the  VoL  L  of  "  The  True  Baptist,"' 
edited  by  Dr.  Newton  of  Mississippi.  In  my  judgment  it  is  a 
work  eminently  deserving  general  circulation.  The  discussion 
of  the  design,  subjects,  and  mode  of  baptism  is  clear,  thorough, 
and  comprehensive.  It  is  conducted  throughoiit  in  a  spirit  of 
candour  and  Christian  kindness,  characteristic  of  those  who  are 
confident  that  they  are  defending  the  truth,  and  not  error.  I 
shall  be  glad  to  see  the  book  issued  in  a  style  corresponding 
with  its  merits,  and  to  know  that  it  has  an  extensive  sale.  1 
am  persuaded  that  it  will  become  a  standard  work  on  the 
subject  of  which  it  treats. 

Yours  respeetfullv, 

A.  M.  M.  BOYD. 

Winchester,  August  17,  1854. 

The  Rev.  Alex.  Newton,  D.D.,  of  Jackson,  Mis?.,  has  done 
good  service  to  the  cause  of  truth,  and  especially  to  those 
branches  of  the  church  who  practise  Infant  Baptism,  by  the 
publication  of  the  "True  Baptist."  I  have  been  highly  grati- 
fied in  the  perusal  of  several  Nos.  of  this  able  work,  and  re- 
gard it  as  one  of  the  best  popular  indications  of  our  views 
on  this  subject  against  the  assaults  of  Baptist  writers  and 
preachers ;  and  as  eminently  fitted  to  do  good  in  every  part  of 
our  land.  I  should  be  very  happy  to  see  it  issued  in  a  per- 
manent form,  and  widely  circulated. 

EDWIX  F.  HATFIELD, 
Pastor  of  the  Seventh  Presb.  Ch. 

New  York,  August  18,  1854. 


Frcfin  Prof.  H.  B.  Smith,  Esq., 
New  York  Union  Theological  Seminary. 
Dear  Sir, — I  have  examined  considerable  portions  of  the 
work,  and  the  arguments  seem  to  be  conducted  with  learning 
and  acuteness.  It  is  particularly  full  upon  the  scriptural 
question.  New  points  of  view  are  presented  and  enforced  with 
ability.  I  should  think  that  it  was  worthy  of  republication 
and  of  more  extensive  circulation. 

Respectfully  yours, 

HENRY  B.  SMITH. 
New  York,  September  18,  1854. 


0'y 

X;':!!*!;rr;:'tii'firi^ii- 

■X-,: 

^'Mm''' 


'^'''^'^■^'  M 


// 


